You are on page 1of 193

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River

4-1
CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERIZE THE WATERSHED
4.0
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related
features of the Kinnickinnic 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 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed. In contrast
to the habitat-based discussion, the water quality and pollutant loading data and modeling results
are organized by each assessment point area.
4.2 Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed
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 31 miles of perennial and ephemeral streams within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts the assessment point areas,
identified as KK-1 thru KK-11. 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 downstream assessment point areas.
Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Kinnickinnic 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.

FIGURE 4-1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
WATERSHED
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN]
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-3
To better understand the Kinnickinnic River watershed and what shapes 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 and river systems and
watersheds, or drainage basins, the least. 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 pre-disturbance 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed.

Historical conditions
Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary Area including the Kinnickinnic 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 Kinnickinnic 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 to reduce flooding. The objectives of channelization were to reduce floods
by conveying stormwater runoff more rapidly and to facilitate drainage of low-lying lands.
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;

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
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-4
limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing and aesthetics; and may
actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Data
Analysis and Recommendations Related to the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
Watersheds for Purposes to Assist the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT)
Science Committee in Development of Watershed Restoration Plans. This memo provides
additional information and detailed mapping of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.

Land use, imperviousness, and hydrology
The Kinnickinnic River watershed is nearly entirely built out. While development 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed. In general, 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
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.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-5
TABLE 4-1
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS
SURFACES CREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Type of Urban Development
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

Although commercial and industrial developments are characterized by larger percentage of
impervious surfaces, residential developments (including lawns) 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, the porosity of residential lawns is impacted by
considerable soil compaction that normally occurs during grading activities. Native grasses,
forbs, and sedges have deeper root systems than turf grass. The deep roots loosen the soil and
create flow channels that increase infiltration capacity. Also, owing to excessive applications of
fertilizers and pesticides, urban lawns typically produce higher unit loads of nutrients and
pesticide than those produced by cropland.
4


When a new commercial or residential development is built near a stream, the extent of
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 miti-
gating 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.
In general, increase imperviousness leads to greater runoff volumes and peak flows; this is
referred to as flashiness (or the rate at which flow responds to a precipitation event) (Figure
4-2). These changes further influence other characteristics of the stream, such as channel
morphology, water quality/quantity, and biological diversity.

4
Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, Watershed
Protection Research Monograph No.1, March 2003, p. 7.





Note: The discharge curve is higher and steeper for urban streams
The words before and after refer to before and after urbanization
FIGURE 4-2
HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON URBAN
AND RURAL STREAMS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-7
In addition, since 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
Kinnickinnic 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. Water quality and pollutant loading is discussed on page 21.

Biological
Aquatic species abundance and distribution can be affected by a number of factors within stream
systems. The biotic factors are beyond the scope of this chapter and are not considered. The
abiotic factors affecting aquatic communities, including fishes, macroinvertebrates and algae,
can collectively be called habitat. Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological,
physical, chemical, and hydrological variables. It is important to note that habitat quality is
intimately related to land use not only directly adjacent to the streambank, but also land use
throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
4.3 Habitat Assessment within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed
This section highlights habitat information for key assessment point areas within the
Kinnickinnic 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 Kinnickinnic River system is comprised of about 30 percent concrete-lining and 30 percent
enclosed channel, and most of the remaining open stream channel is unstable and eroding
(TABLE 4-2).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. Comparison of historic longitudinal profiles indicates that up to four to five feet of
incision has occurred since the 1970s.
6
This channel instability is due to a combination of
elements that include; a high amount of urban development and associated impervious area,
stormwater network designed to move runoff quickly and efficiently off the land surface;
significant encroachment of urban development to the stream, which confines flows within a
narrow area and exposing the streambank and streambed to extremely high velocities and shear
stress; and steep slopes.

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.
6
Milwaukee County, Milwaukee County Stream Assessment, Final Report, completed by Inter-Fluve,
Inc., September, 2004.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-8
This is consistent with extensive areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian
buffers less than 75 feet in width. More than 70 percent of the river corridors within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed contain buffers with less than 75 feet in width. Stream widths in
the Kinnickinnic River generally range from 10 to 74 feet. The Upper and Middle Kinnickinnic
river mainstem assessment point areas (KK-3, KK-10) contain the most highly buffered stream
reaches. Approximately 27 percent of the stream within assessment point area KK-3 and 23
percent of the stream in assessment point area KK-10 has riparian buffers that exceed 75 feet in
width. Channel bed substrates throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed were dominated by
gravels and coarse 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.

The highly buffered areas within the watershed tend to be associated with park systems. The
Upper Kinnickinnic River mainstem also contains two of the six total highest quality vegetation
communities in the entire watershed. The Lower Wilson Park Creek (KK-8), Holmes Avenue
Creek (KK-5), and Lyons Park Creek (KK-1) assessment point areas also contain important plant
community areas with fair to good quality. These areas serve as extremely important wildlife
refuge areas within the Kinnickinnic River watersheds highly urbanized landscape. See
Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Data Analysis and Recommendations Related to the Menomonee
River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds for Purposes to Assist the Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust (SWWT) Science Committee in Development of Watershed Restoration Plans.
This memo provides additional information on buffer widths and plant communites including
detailed mapping of these features within the Kinnickinnic River watershed.

As previously summarized within the RWQMPU, there are a total of 61 point sources identified
within the Kinnickinnic River watershed that include noncontact cooling water permits,
individual permits, CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. These are predominantly located within the
assessment point areas that correspond to the Kinnckinnic River mainstem ( KK-3, KK-10, and
KK-11). There are an estimated 53 stormwater outfalls found along the Kinnickinnic River. The
stormwater outfalls are not concentrated in any particular area, but are found throughout the
watershed. Stormwater outfalls are far more numerous than any other type of outfall.
Considering their distribution and the fact that these stormwater outfalls discharge with all rain
events (as opposed to a few events a year like CSOs), their potential for water quality impacts is
far more 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. 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. Due to limited numbers
of examples of infiltration and streambank protections projects withn the Kinnickinnic River
watershed, Figure 4-3 depicts projects that are underway within the Menomonee River
watershed. Also, see Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Data Analysis and Recommendations Related
to the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds for Purposes to Assist the
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) Science Committee in Development of
Watershed Restoration Plans. This memo provides additional information on outfall pipes, point
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-9
sources and monitoring sites including detailed mapping of these features of the Kinnickinnic
River watershed.

4-2, Page 1 of 2
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

[]

Table 4-2, Page 2 of 2
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN














FIGURE 4-3
INFILTRATION AND STREAMBANK
PROTECTION EXAMPLES
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-13
Instream biological conditions
The most recent biological assessment of the Kinnickinnic River watershed identified a strong
relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.
7
For
example, median chloride concentrations among Greater Milwaukee Watersheds show a positive
relation with increasing land use. However, it is important to note that not all water quality
constituents showed the same pattern in its relationship with urban lands, some showed opposite
responses and some showed no patterns at all. However, aggregated biological indices generally
present a pretty clear relationship between urban environments and habitat. Figure 4-4 shows the
strong negative relationship between fisheries Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Hilsenhoff
Biotic Integrity (HBI) quality with increased levels of urbanization within the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds.
8


Hydrology plays an important role. As noted above, urbanization increases impervious surface,
which can lead to an increase in flashiness which subsequently affects streambank stability,
streambed stability, pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics. These changes can affect habitat
availability and quality. The Kinnickinnic River contains about 30 to 40 percent imperviousness
based upon the amount of urban land development. In summary, the hydrology within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed is a major determinant of stream dynamics and is a vital
component of habitat for fishes and other organisms. The interactions among land use, stream
characteristics and habitat are diagramed in Figure 4-5.

TABLE 4-3 presents aggregated bioassessment results from multiple watersheds from the
Milwaukee area. Data from other watersheds was used to in order to put the results of the
Kinnickinnic River into context. This table really highlights the fact that the highest quality
aquatic habitats tend to be located in less developed areas. In contrast, the poorest quality
biological communities are located in highly urbanized areas, including the Kinnickinnic River.
While urbanizion in itself is not the only determinant of habitat quality, it does tend to play a
prominent role and serve as a predictor of habitat degradation. In general, SEWRPCs
RWQMPU summarized that the biological community in the Kinnickinnic River watershed 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
3. Habitat loss and continued fragmentation due to culverts, concrete lined channels, enclosed
conduits, drop structures, and past channelization



7
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.
8
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. Accessed online Dec 2, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/ibi-hist.html.

FIGURE 4-4
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOTA
AND URBANIZATION
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN


FIGURE 4-5
INTERACTIONS OF LAND USE, STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS AND HABITAT
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN



TABLE 4-3
AGGREGATED BIOASSESSMENT
RESULTS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-17

With respect to item 3 above (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and concrete
linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) which was recently
restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). While this reach is not located in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed, it serves as a good example of the potential habitat improvement
that can be realized by concrete removal and floodplain restoration.








FIGURE 4-6
CONCRETE REMOVAL / FLOODPLAIN
RESTORATION EXAMPLE
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-19
Channel obstructions and fragmentation
There are nearly 100 potential channel obstructions within the Kinnickinnic 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, among others. 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.
9
In addition to some of the road and rail stream crossings, the concrete lining
within the Lower Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) limits fish
passage due to its extreme length, lack of habitat, lack of adequate water depths, high velocities,
and flashiness.

As summarized by SEWRPCs RWQUMPU, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish
species throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed 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 (TABLE 4-4). This indicates that the
poor habitat, hydrology, and water quality conditions continue to severely limit fisheries within
this watershed. In general, the Kinnickinnic River contains the poorest fish, invertebrate, and
algal communities within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. In fact, only two native fish
species have been found to occur within this watershed since the year 2000. However, due to its
connection with the Estuary and Great Lakes system, the lower reach of the Kinnickinnic River
mainstem has the greatest potential for fishery improvement. This information combined with
recent completion of the removal of contaminated sediments within the lower reaches of the
Kinnickinnic River makes it much more likely that fish species utilization will increase within
this lower part of the system.

Existing water quality monitoring information
The Kinnickinnic River watershed has a total of 26 surface water monitoring stations. The
majority of the water quality data is being collected by the MMSD, USGS, WDNR, and
volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeepers Citizen Based Monitoring program.
MMSD continues to sample bi-monthly physical and chemical sampling and analysis at 6
mainstem and 2 tributary sites on the Kinnickinnic 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 Kinnickinnic River and some
of their associated tributaries.

9
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.

TABLE 4-4
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-21
The MMSD with USGS have also established one real-time water quality monitoring station on
the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River. Using remote sensor technology, 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 which transmits data in
parallel to 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 Kinnickinnic River Watershed
As noted at the beginning of the habitat assessment section, an assessment point area has been
developed for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. In most cases, the Kinnickinnic River
watershed assessment point areas match, but there are minor differences in the vicinity of the
estuary. With respect to water quality and pollutant loading, 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.
Within the following section, for each assessment point area, the following are presented:
A map of the assessment point area showing the extent of the area (Figure 4-7)
Land use in the assessment point area
Civil divisions (municipalities) within in the assessment point area
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Baseline defined as:
o The simulated water quality resulting from the model which 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 SLAMM (source
loading and management model) and SWAT (soil and water assessment tool) models
with some adjustments made to calibrate the water quality model.
To support the development of the 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 Kinnickinnic 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 utilize data, maps, figures
and tables to present a comprehensive picture of the baseline conditions within each assessment
point area in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River


4-22
The pollutant loading is presented by nonpoint sources and point sources (industrial discharges,
CSOs (combined sewer overflows) and SSOs (sanitary sewer overflows). The loading for
nonpoint sources is further refined to estimate the delivered loads by land use (expressed as
loads and as percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed as
units per acre per year).
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 Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) for Year 2020
o Complete implementation of the RWQMPUs recommended actions for the
recommended Plan which includes full implementation of Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) Chapter NR 151, Runoff Management, Wisconsin
Administrative Code (NR 151) and implementation of many other actions as
detailed in the RWQMPU.
o Water quality modeling results based upon these assumptions.
o The pollutant loading is presented by nonpoint sources and point sources
(industrial discharges, CSOs and SSOs). The loading for nonpoint sources is
further refined to estimate the delivered loads by land use (expressed as loads and
as percent of total loads), and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed as
units per acre per year).
While the chapter presents data for each of the assessment point areas individually, it may be
useful to first provide a comparison among all assessment point areas within the Kinnickinnic
River Watershed. TABLE 4-5 presents a summary 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 Kinnickinnic River Watershed assessment
point areas and graphs which 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 that are intended to address focus areas in the Kinnickinnic
River Watershed.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-23

TABLE 4-5
TOTAL BASELINE LOADS WITHIN ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS

Baseline Nonpoint Baseline Point Baseline Total
TP
1
TSS
2
BOD
3
FC
4
TP TSS BOD FC TP TSS BOD FC
pounds tons pounds billion counts pounds tons pounds billion counts pounds tons pounds billion counts
KK-1 625

141.94

16,935 247,097 0

0.01 7 517 626

141.95

16,942 247,614
KK-2 894

278.92

30,856 327,952 458

1.59 5,451 2,068 1,352

280.51

36,307 330,020
KK-3 1,204

280.35

33,547 469,449 1

0.03 13 1,034 1,205

280.38

33,560 470,483
KK-4 1,846

441.90

122,152 458,079 335

3.57 5,838 16,143 2,181

445.47

127,990 474,222
KK-5 1,006

321.75

44,480 361,867 442

0.40 1,124 0 1,448

322.15

45,604 361,867
KK-6 599

157.12

16,752 202,881 0

0 0 0 599

157.12

16,752 202,881
KK-7 444

108.49

12,119 145,036 0

0 0 0 444

108.49

12,119 145,036
KK-8 1,727

444.27

49,047 583,597 0

0 0 0 1,727

444.27

49,047 583,597
KK-9 541

128.21

15,349 185,811 1,155

28.00

13,951 1,021,327 1,696

156.21

29,300

1,207,138
KK-10 1,065

293.19

31,886 376,749 434

19.62 8,968 491,755 1,499

312.81

40,854 868,504
Notes:
1
TP = Total phosphorus
2
TSS = Total suspended solids
3
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
4
FC = Fecal coliform
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-24
4.5 Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds)
The Kinnickinnic River contains 10 assessment point areas. These areas are presented on Figure
4-7.

4.6 Lyons Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-1)
Lyons Park Creek is located in the northwestern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed,
primarily within the city of Milwaukee. This tributary flows in a northerly direction within
enclosed conduit, concrete-lined channel and natural channel conditions.
The creek begins about mile southeast of the intersection of Forest Home and Morgan
Avenues. From that point, the creek flows northwesterly and enters enclosed conduit and flows
beneath Forest Home Avenue. After emerging about 100 feet north of Forest Home Avenue, the
creek flows northwesterly through Lyons Park. This reach flows within a predominantly natural
channel that terminates at 57
th
Street. West of 57
th
Street, the creek flows northwesterly within a
concrete-lined channel to West Lakefield Drive, located about a block south of West Oklahoma
Avenue and east of 60
th
street. From this point, the creek then enters enclosed conduit and flows
northerly under Oklahoma Avenue and emerges at West Bennett Avenue. From that point, the
creek enters a concrete-lined channel and continues to flow northerly past Fairview Elementary
school and the Milwaukee Spanish Immersion School. When the creek reaches Cleveland
Avenue, it again enters enclosed conduit. The creek re-emerges about 200 feet north of
Cleveland Avenue, in flows through a short section of concrete-lined channel and then enters the
Kinnickinnic River Parkway. At this point, the creek enters the South 43
rd
Street Ditch
assessment point area (KK-2), see page 40. For more information on Lyons Park Creek or other
subwatersheds within the Kinnickinnic River, see SEWRPCs RWQMPU.
There are approximately 10 dams or drop structures located along Lyons Park Creek. The width
of the riparian margin is relatively narrow, with only 10 percent of the stream within the
assessment point area having a riparian width that exceeds 75 feet. The creek predominantly
flows through high-density residential neighborhoods and two commercial areas associated with
Forest Home and Oklahoma Avenues. The Lyons Park Creek assessment point (KK-1) area
encompasses 1.3 square miles (Figure 4-8).
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Lyons Park Creek assessment
point area (KK-1) is predominantly high-density residential (54 percent) and low-density
residential (5 percent) (these are defined in the following table). Local roads and arterial streets
contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 30 percent of the total land use.
Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional, governmental as well as
commercial land uses, compose the remaining 11 percent. Based on an analysis of land use
information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 31 percent of the 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
Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1).

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-25

TABLE 4-6
LAND USE IN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.1 4.72%
High Density Residential
2
0.7 54.19%
Commercial 0.0 1.93%
Institutional & Governmental 0.0 4.08%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.1 5.05%
Transportation 0.4 30.03%
Manufacturing and Industrial 0.0 0.00%
Total 1.3 100.00%
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.
LEGEND
Figure 4-7
KK Watershed
Assessment Point Area
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHE'
45
45
241
119
59
24
36
24
59
100
62
32
32
59
181
100
38
32
38
62
62
894
794
894
94
43 894
94
43
Y
ZZ
ZZ
N
Y
Y
U
T
C i t y o f
WE S T A L L I S
C i t y o f
WE S T A L L I S
C i t y o f
S T . F R A N C I S
C i t y o f
S T . F R A N C I S
C i t y o f
G R E E N F I E L D
C i t y o f
G R E E N F I E L D
C i t y o f
C U D A H Y
C i t y o f
C U D A H Y
Village of
HALES CORNERS
Village of
GREENDALE
Village of
WEST MILWAUKEE
Forest H
om
e A
ve
Forest Home Ave
Beloit Ave
Lincoln Ave
Cleveland Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
Burnham St
National Ave
Lincoln Ave
Cleveland Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
Burnham St
Howard Ave
Bolivar Ave
Layton Ave
Edgerton Ave
Grange Ave
Layton Ave
Grange Ave
6 0
t h
S
t
4 3
r d
S
t
2 7
t h
S
t
3 5
t h
S
t
2 0
t h
S
t
6 t h
S
t
1 3
t h
S
t
C
h
a
s e
A
v e
C
l e
m
e
n
t A
v e
6 0
t h
S
t
4 3
r d
S
t
2 7
t h
S
t
3 5
t h
S
t
2 0
t h
S
t
1 3
t h
S
t
2 7
t h
S
t
3 5
t h
S
t
2 0
t h
S
t
6 t h
S
t
1 3
t h
S
t
H
o
w
e
l l A
v
e
P
e n
n
s
y l v
a n
n
i a
A
v e
KINNICKI NNI C RIVER
KK-2
KK-1
KK-3
KK-9
KK-10
KK-8
KK-7
KK-6
KK-5
KK-4
0 2,400 4,800 1,200
Feet
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Wat ershed
Wat er
Wat erbodies
Civil Division
Assessment Points Combined Sewer Service Area
Figure 4-8
Land Use Map : KK-1
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-1
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

A
v
e
Cleveland Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
6
0
t
h

S
t
4
3
r
d

S
t
0 700 1,400 350
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-28
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Lyons Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-1). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and
Milwaukee. Nearly 88 percent of the 1.3 square mile area is located within the city of
Milwaukee. The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 12 percent. The extent of the civil
divisions within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) is presented in TABLE 4-
7.
TABLE 4-7
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment
Point Area within Civil
Division
City of Greenfield 0.1 12.33%
City of Milwaukee 1.2 87.67%
Total 1.3 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO), total phosphorus (TP), fecal
coliform (FC) and total suspended solids (TSS); however, the parameters of focus in the Lyons
Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) are FC and DO. The largest contributor to baseline
loads is commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant
loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses in the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1). These sources may
be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified
sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant
loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst
the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, the assessments
of FC concentrations were characterized as moderate for the annual measure and good for the
swimming season. See Figure 4-9, Figure 4-10, and Figure 4-11 for FC data as a function of
days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream
flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-3 represents the cumulative number of days,
at various concentrations, throughout the year.
Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail during the summer months. The minimum DO
concentrations were assessed as poor and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as
very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are highly variable in the spring. This variability
suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of biochemical oxygen demand
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-29
within the system. The decline in oxygen concentrations during the summer months is typical
and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on TP and TSS
data. The concentrations of TP are characterized as good within the Lyons Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-1). The concentrations of TP increase in early spring, possibly due to
fertilizer applications. The concentrations of TP are fairly consistent and generally decline
during the late spring, summer and early fall months. This may be related in part to uptake by
plants during the growing season. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality under baseline conditions.
Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as very good. 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. However, note that the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area
(KK-1) 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 detailed analysis described above, the modeled baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-8. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment
of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of
different evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
In the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) are
presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE
4-9 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-10 presents the percentage breakdown for each
load and TABLE 4-11 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ Lyons park Creek (RI 831)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-9
KK-1 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-10
KK-1 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Lyons Park Creek Reach 831
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-11
KK-1 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-33
TABLE 4-8
BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE LYONS PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)

Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-1
Lyons Park
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,659
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells
per 100 ml)
a

80
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
492
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard
(<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

296
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,660
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells
per 100 ml)
a

90
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
361
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard
(<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

150
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 6.6
Median (mg/l) 6.3
Percent compliance with
dissolved oxygen standard (>2
mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.052
Median (mg/l) 0.031
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
88
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.66
Median (mg/l) 0.67
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 8.5
Median (mg/l) 5.0
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0036
Median (mg/l) 0.0013
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-34
TABLE 4-9
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p

(
B
)

C
r
o
p

(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s

(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s

(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s

(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e

(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 219.3 -- -- 0.55 6.14 -- 311.14 -- -- -- 86.52 -- 1.02 0.68 -- -- 0.47
TSS tons 92.01 -- -- 0.1 2.84 -- 17.13 -- -- -- 29.45 -- 0.38 0.03 -- -- 0.01
BOD pounds 9,848 -- -- 35 525 -- 3,560 -- -- -- 2,905 -- 39 23 -- -- 6.67
FC billion counts 122,153 -- -- 4 13,852 -- 14,579 -- -- -- 95,429 -- 1,079 1 -- -- 517
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as
impervious land.
TABLE 4-10
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 35% -- -- 0% 1% -- 50% -- -- -- 14% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
TSS 65% -- -- 0% 2% -- 12% -- -- -- 21% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
BOD 58% -- -- 0% 3% -- 21% -- -- -- 17% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
FC 49% -- -- 0% 6% -- 6% -- -- -- 39% -- 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as
impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-35
TABLE 4-11
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE/ YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.26 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.36 -- -- -- 0.10 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre 0.11 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre 11.54 -- -- 0.04 0.62 -- 4.17 -- -- -- 3.40 -- 0.05 0.03 -- -- 0.01
FC billion counts/acre 143 -- -- 0 16 -- 17 -- -- -- 112 -- 1 0 -- -- 1
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-36
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) was evaluated. The
index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow.
In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the potential to
disturb aquatic life and habitat. There is one assessed plant community located within this
assessment point area. The quality of this community is assessed as fair. It is important to note
that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen
is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress
aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important
component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can
also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO
concentrations were assessed as poor and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as
very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality
parameters affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) would
result in a 44 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 14 percent reduction in baseline BOD
loads. The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU
that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Loads are grouped by
their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Year 2020 water
quality is presented in TABLE 4-12. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that may have been 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. TABLE 4-13 presents the
Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-14 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown
for each load, and TABLE 4-15 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre
basis.

Notwithstanding the 44 percent reduction in FC loading and the 14 percent reduction in BOD
loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicates that the
assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming
season measure. The assessments of minimum DO concentrations would remain poor and the
maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. The assessments of TSS would remain
unchanged as very good and TP would remain 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
2020 Regional Plan conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Lyons Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-1) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-37
TABLE 4-12
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE LYONS PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)

Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-1
Lyons Park Creek
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,184
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

82
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 278
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

331
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,522
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

92
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 205
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

153
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 6.6
Median (mg/l) 6.3
Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.047
Median (mg/l) 0.029
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
89
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.61
Median (mg/l) 0.61
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 6.8
Median (mg/l) 4.0
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0030
Median (mg/l) 0.0011
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-38
TABLE 4-13
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 194.26 -- -- 0.49 5.44 -- 249.18 -- -- -- 74.30 -- 0.90 0.46 -- -- 0.47
TSS tons 73.41 -- -- 0.09 2.26 -- 13.63 -- -- -- 22.78 -- 0.30 0.02 -- -- 0.01
BOD pounds 8,380 -- -- 32 446 -- 3,031 -- -- -- 2,396 -- 33 16 -- -- 7
FC billion counts 68,976 -- -- 4 7,820 -- 8,233 -- -- -- 52,238 -- 609 1 -- -- 517
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-14
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 37% -- -- 0% 1% -- 47% -- -- -- 14% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
TSS 65% -- -- 0% 2% -- 12% -- -- -- 20% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
BOD 58% -- -- 0% 3% -- 21% -- -- -- 17% -- 0% 0% -- -- 0%
FC 50% -- -- 0% 6% -- 6% -- -- -- 38% -- 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-39

TABLE 4-15
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.23 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.29 -- -- -- 0.09 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre 0.09 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre 10 -- -- 0 1 -- 4 -- -- -- 3 -- 0 0 -- -- 0
FC billion counts/acre 81 -- -- 0 9 -- 10 -- -- -- 61 -- 1 0 -- -- 1
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-40
4.6.1. South 43
rd
Street Ditch (Assessment Point KK-2)
The 43
rd
Street Ditch is located in the northwestern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
This tributary flows southeasterly to its confluence with the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River.
The South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) encompasses 3.1 square miles and also
includes upstream portions of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem that receives flow from Lyons
Park Creek.
The South 43
rd
Street Ditch begins about mile southwest of the intersection of Burnham Street
and Miller Park Way. The stream flows easterly along a natural, but straightened channel to 43
rd

Street. At this point, the stream enters enclosed conduit and flows southerly along 43
rd
Street and
then changes direction to flow about 400 feet east along Lincoln Avenue. From this point, the
stream emerges and flows southerly within a straightened natural channel. The stream re-enters
enclosed conduit about 700 feet south of Lincoln Avenue, flows beneath the Union Pacific (UP)
rail line. At the point where the creek emerges south of the rail line, it enters the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3), see page 57.
As noted above, the 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area also contains a portion of the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem. This reach of the mainstem begins immediately downstream of
the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area. This point is located at the intersection of 60
th

Street and Cleveland Avenue and about three blocks south of Longfellow Elementary School.
From this point, the river enters the Kinnickinnic River Parkway and flows easterly past Miller
Park Way and into Jackson Park. Once in the park, the river changes direction and flows
northerly toward the UP rail line. At the rail line, the mainstem joins the 43
rd
Street Ditch which
flows from the north. This point marks the downstream terminus of the 43
rd
Street Ditch
assessment point area and is the beginning of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point
area (KK-3). This point is located at the northern end of Jackson Park within the city of
Milwaukee (Figure 4-12).
The 43
rd
Street Ditch flows through manufacturing and industrial land uses and where the stream
is not enclosed in conduit, the riparian widths tend to be relatively narrow. In fact, there is no
point within the assessment point area where the riparian width exceeds 75 feet. The South 43
rd

Street Ditch assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures.In contrast, the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem flows within a natural channel through the Kinnickinnic River
Parkway which is predominantly bordered by high-density housing with some low-density
housing located south of the parkway. The width of the riparian margin along the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem within the 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area is variable, but is generally
relatively wide throughout the Kinnickinnic River Parkway area.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river and the ditch, the land use within the South 43
rd
Street
assessment point area (KK-2) is predominantly residential, including high-density residential (41
percent) and low-density residential (2 percent) (these are defined in the following table). Local
roads and arterial streets contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 31 percent
of the total land use. The Miller Park Way corridor and former Allis Chalmers site contribute to
manufacturing and industrial land use, which make up nearly 11 percent of the total land use.
Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional & governmental, and
commercial land uses, compose the remaining 15 percent of the area. Based on an analysis of
land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 40 percent of the
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-41
South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) assessment point area is impervious.
TABLE 4-16 presents the land uses within the 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-43
TABLE 4-16
LAND USE IN THE SOUTH 43
RD
STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq
mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.1 2.17%
High Density Residential
2
1.2 40.75%
Commercial 0.1 3.67%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.1 2.62%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.3 8.89%
Transportation 1.0 31.08%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.3 10.82%
Total 3.1 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-12
Land Use Map : KK-2
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-2
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

A
v
e
B
e
l
o
i
t

A
v
e
Lincoln Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Burnham St
N
a
tio
n
a
l A
v
e
6
0
t
h

S
t
4
3
r
d

S
t
2
7
t
h

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
0 710 1,420 355
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-45
Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the South 43
rd

Street assessment point area (KK-2). The municipalities are the cities of Milwaukee and West
Allis and the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 55 percent of the 3.1 square mile area is
located within the city of West Allis. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 30 percent and the
village of West Milwaukee occupies the remaining 15 percent. The extent of the civil divisions
within the South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE SOUTH 43
rd
STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment
Point Area within Civil
Division
City of Milwaukee 0.9 29.93%
City of West Allis 1.7 54.74%
Village of West
Milwaukee 0.5 15.33%
Total 3.1 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in the South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) are FC, and DO. The largest
contributor to baseline loads is commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2). These
sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, the assessments
of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and were good for the swimming
season measure. See Figure 4-13, Figure 4-14, and Figure 4-15 for FC data as a function of days
per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow,
respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-7 represents the cumulative number of days, at
various concentrations, throughout the year.
Dissolved oxygen and TP were also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were
assessed as moderate during the warm weather months and the maximum DO concentrations
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-46
were characterized as very good during the same time period (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are
highly variable and tend to decline in winter more than would be expected. This variability
suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of biochemical oxygen demand
within the system. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and
likely due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water.
In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on TP and TSS
data. The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicates that
concentrations increase with flows. This suggests that suspended solids are either primarily
attributed to nonpoint sources within the South 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) or
to in-stream erosion that would be more prevalent during high flows. Note that the South 43
rd

Street Ditch assessment point area contains some concrete-lined and / or enclosed 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. The concentrations of TP are characterized
as good within the area. The concentrations of TP exceed the planning guideline 50 percent of
the time during the early spring. The concentrations of TP generally decline during the late
spring, summer and early fall months. This may be related in part to uptake by plants during the
growing season. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-20 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-21
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ S. 43rd Street Ditch (RI 801)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-13
KK-2 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-14
KK-2 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
South 43
rd
Street Ditch Reach 801
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-15
KK-2 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-50
TABLE 4-18
BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE SOUTH 43
rd
STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)

Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-2
S. 43rd
Street Ditch
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 4,080
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

82
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 227
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

325
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,047
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

91
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 153
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

153
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.5
Median (mg/l) 9.4
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.087
Median (mg/l) 0.072
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
85
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.81
Median (mg/l) 0.78
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 9.2
Median (mg/l) 3.8
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0033
Median (mg/l) 0.0007

a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.


.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-51
TABLE 4-19
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE 43
rd
STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 350.01 -- -- 0.62 6.27 -- 340.85 -- 133.75 -- 57.78 1.52 1.02 2.63 456.07 -- 1.89
TSS tons 146.84 -- -- 0.11 2.9 -- 18.77 -- 89.25 -- 19.67 0.89 0.38 0.11 1.54 -- 0.05
BOD pounds 15,718 -- -- 39 536 -- 3,900 -- 8,529 -- 1,940 65 39 90 5,424.74 -- 26.66
FC billion counts 194,960 -- -- 4 14,142 -- 15,971 -- 37,535 -- 63,727 529 1,079 5 -- -- 2,068
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-20
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE 43
rd
STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 26% -- -- 0% 0% -- 25% -- 10% -- 4% 0% 0% 0% 34% -- 0%
TSS 52% -- -- 0% 1% -- 7% -- 32% -- 7% 0% 0% 0% 1% -- 0%
BOD 43% -- -- 0% 1% -- 11% -- 23% -- 5% 0% 0% 0% 15% -- 0%
FC 59% -- -- 0% 4% -- 5% -- 11% -- 19% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-52
TABLE 4-21
BASELINE LOADS WITHIN THE 43
rd
STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.32 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.31 -- 0.12 -- 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.13 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 -- 0.08 -- 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
14.32 -- -- 0.04 0.49 -- 3.55 -- 7.77 -- 1.77 0.06 0.04 0.08 4.94 -- 0.02
FC billion counts/acre
178 -- -- 0 13 -- 15 -- 34 -- 58 0 1 0 -- -- 2
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.;
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-53
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) was evaluated. The
index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow.
In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the potential to
disturb aquatic life and habitat. This assessment point does not contain any assessed plant
communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient
DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations
throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO
concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather
months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate during the warm weather
months and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the same
time period. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality
parameters affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in an 11
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 45 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 15
percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within the 43
rd
Street Ditch assessment point area. Year
2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-22. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment
of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of
different evaluation criteria that may have been 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.

TABLE 4-23 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-24 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-25 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the
projection in the RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be
eliminated.

Notwithstanding the 45 percent reduction in FC loading, the 11 percent reduction in TP loading
and the 15 percent reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure
and good for the swimming season measure. The assessment of minimum DO concentrations
would remain moderate and the maximum DO concentrations would remain very good.
Furthermore, the assessment of TP would remain as good and the assessments of TSS would
remain unchanged 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 2020 Regional
Plan conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the South 43
rd
Street Ditch
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-54
assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more
detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-55
TABLE 4-22
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE SOUTH 43
rd
STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-2
S. 43rd Street
Ditch
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,280
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

84
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 132
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100
ml)
a

347
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,201
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

92
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 92
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100
ml)
a

153
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.6
Median (mg/l) 9.4
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.082
Median (mg/l) 0.071
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
86
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.77
Median (mg/l) 0.75
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 8.0
Median (mg/l) 3.4
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0026
Median (mg/l) 0.0006
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.



Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-56
TABLE 4-23
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43
RD
STREET DITECH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 307.35 -- -- 0.35 4.63 -- 275.29 -- 105.18 -- 55.45 -- 0.95 1.49 456.07 -- 1.89
TSS tons 114.11 -- -- 0.06 1.84 -- 15.06 -- 63.22 -- 16.67 -- 0.31 0.06 1.54 -- 0.05
BOD pounds 13,324 -- -- 22 369 -- 3,349 -- 6,442 -- 1,833 -- 36 51 5,425 -- 27
FC billion counts 107,590 -- -- 3 6,226 -- 9,096 -- 18,816 -- 37,718 -- 619 3 -- -- 2,068
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-24
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43
RD
STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 25% -- -- 0% 0% -- 23% -- 9% -- 5% -- 0% 0% 38% -- 0%
TSS 54% -- -- 0% 1% -- 7% -- 30% -- 8% -- 0% 0% 1% -- 0%
BOD 43% -- -- 0% 1% -- 11% -- 21% -- 6% -- 0% 0% 18% -- 0%
FC 59% -- -- 0% 3% -- 5% -- 10% -- 21% -- 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-57
TABLE 4-25
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43
RD
STREET ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.28 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.25 -- 0.10 -- 0.05 -- 0.00 0.00 0.42 -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.10 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.01 -- 0.06 -- 0.02 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
12 -- -- 0 0 -- 3 -- 6 -- 2 -- 0 0 5 -- 0
FC billion counts/acre
98 -- -- 0 6 -- 8 -- 17 -- 34 -- 1 0 -- -- 2
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area..
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-58
4.6.2. Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Point KK-3)
The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is located in the central portion
of the Kinnickinnic River watershed and flows southeasterly towards its confluence with Wilson
Park Creek. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) encompasses 1.3
square miles and is home to Alverno College (43
rd
Street and Morgan Ave.) and Pilgrims Rest
Cemetery (Forest Home Avenue and 33
rd
Street).
This reach of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem begins south of the UP rail line and about 300
feet east of 43
rd
Street. This point marks the confluence of the 43
rd
Street ditch and the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem. The river enters a concrete-lined channel and flows southeasterly
along the south side of the UP rail line. The river enters about 600 feet of enclosed conduit and
flows beneath two baseball diamonds located on the north end of Jackson Park. The river
emerges in the northeast corner of the park and flows southerly within a concrete-lined channel,
beneath Forest Home Avenue, towards the southeast corner of the park approximately located at
the intersection of 35
th
and Manitoba Streets. From this point, the river flows easterly within a
concrete-lined channel located along the south side of the Kinnickinnic River Parkway and
towards Saint Lukes Hospital. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem (KK-3) assessment point area
terminates just upstream of the hospital and the rivers confluence with Wilson Park Creek. This
downstream point is approximately located at the intersection of 30th Street and Oklahoma
Avenue in the city of Milwaukee (Figure 4-16).
The river flows through recreational and high-density residential land uses. North of Forest
Home Avenue, the river flows through Jackson Park which is a recreational area. South of Forest
Home Avenue, the river flows through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway which is bordered by
high-density residential with some commercial land uses along Oklahoma Avenue. Within the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3), the entire reach is either concrete-
lined or enclosed within conduit. Overall, the width of the riparian margin varies, but is mostly
narrow and less than 25 feet. Approximately 25 percent of the river within the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) exceeds 75 feet.. The Kinnickinnic River
mainstem assessment point area contains one dam or drop structure.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, there are two main land uses within the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). High-density residential land use contributes to
the greatest use at 37 percent (this is defined in the following table); local roads, arterial streets
and several large parking lots contribute to transportation comprising approximately 33 percent
of the total land use. Jackson Park and land along the river corridor contribute to recreation,
natural areas, and open space land use comprising nearly 16 percent of the total land use.
Institutional and governmental, commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose
the remaining 14 percent. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 30 percent of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment
point area (KK-3) is impervious.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-59
TABLE 4-26 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point
area (KK-3).


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-60
TABLE 4-26
LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.0 0.00%
High Density Residential
2
0.5 36.60%
Commercial 0.0 2.35%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.2 11.46%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.2 15.56%
Transportation 0.4 33.11%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.0 0.92%
Total 1.3 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-16
Land Use Map : KK-3
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-3
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

A
v
e
B
e
l
o
i
t

A
v
e
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
Lincoln Ave
Cleveland Av
Oklahoma A
Morgan Av
6
0
t
h

S
t
4
3
r
d

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
2
7
t
h

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
0 690 1,380 345
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-62
Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield
and Milwaukee and the village of West Milwaukee. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 86
percent of the 1.3 square mile area. The city of Greenfield occupies nearly 14 percent. The
village of West Milwaukee occupies a fraction of a percent of the land use. The extent of the
civil divisions within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is
presented in TABLE 4-27.
TABLE 4-27
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Greenfield 0.2 13.60%
City of Milwaukee 1.1 86.40%
Village of West Milwaukee 0.0 0.00%
Total 1.3 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameter of
focus in the Kinnickinnic River is FC. The largest contributors to baseline loads are commercial
land use for FC and grass on hydrologic group C soils for TP. It is important to recognize that
land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). These
sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 analysis, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and as moderate for the swimming season
measure. See Figure 4-17, Figure 4-18, and Figure 4-19 for FC data as a function of days per
year, FC data as a function of month of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow,
respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-11 represents the cumulative number of days, at
various concentrations, throughout the year.
In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO, TP and
TSS data. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-63
good and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for
details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of
DO are highly variable and tend to decline in winter more than would be expected. The
variability suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of biochemical oxygen
demand within the system. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is
typical and likely due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water.
Total phosphorus was also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TP are characterized as good
within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The concentrations of
TP exceed the planning guideline 50 percent of the time during the early spring and generally
decline during the late spring, summer and early fall months. This may be related in part to
uptake by plants during the growing season.
The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. 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. However, note
that the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) contains concrete-lined and /
or enclosed reaches within its assessment point area. 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. 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 4-28. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point reach. In the
table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter wont necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-29 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-30 presents the percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-31
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads
from assessment point areas KK-1 and KK-2, are estimated within the Kinnickinnic River
mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). TABLE 4-32 presents the cumulative annual pollutant
loads, TABLE 4-33 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-
34 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River Upstream of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek
Creek (RI 710)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-17
KK-3 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-18
KK-3 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Kinnickinnic River Upstream of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek Reach 710
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-19
KK-3 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-67
TABLE 4-28
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-3
Kinnickinnic
River Upstream
of Confluence
with Wilson
Park Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,373
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

79
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 371
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

305
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,747
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

89
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 260
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

152
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.4
Median (mg/l) 8.8
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.073
Median (mg/l) 0.053
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
85
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.74
Median (mg/l) 0.74
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 10.6
Median (mg/l) 4.2
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0037
Median (mg/l) 0.001
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-68
TABLE 4-29
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS /
YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 435.05 -- -- 2.87 12.85 -- 584.1 0.21 9.56 -- 137.99 -- 14.93 6.59 -- -- 0.95
TSS tons 182.52 -- -- 0.5 5.94 -- 32.16 0.01 6.38 -- 46.97 -- 5.6 0.27 -- -- 0.03
BOD pounds 19,537 -- -- 183 1,099 -- 6,683 2 610 -- 4,633 -- 574 226 -- -- 13.33
FC billion counts 242,326 -- -- 21 29,007 -- 27,369 12 2,683 -- 152,197 -- 15,821 13 -- -- 1,034
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-30
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP
36% -- -- 0% 1% -- 48% 0% 1% -- 11% -- 1% 1% -- -- 0%
TSS
65% -- -- 0% 2% -- 11% 0% 2% -- 17% -- 2% 0% -- -- 0%
BOD
58% -- -- 1% 3% -- 20% 0% 2% -- 14% -- 2% 1% -- -- 0%
FC
52% -- -- 0% 6% -- 6% 0% 1% -- 32% -- 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-69
TABLE 4-31
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.26 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.35 0.00 0.01 -- 0.08 -- 0.01 0.00 -- -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.11 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.00 0.00 -- 0.03 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
11.67 -- -- 0.11 0.66 -- 3.99 0.00 0.36 -- 2.77 -- 0.34 0.13 -- -- 0.01
FC billion counts/acre
145 -- -- 0 17 -- 16 0 2 -- 91 -- 9 0 -- -- 1
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
TABLE 4-32
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 1,004.36 -- -- 4.03 25.26 -- 1,236 0.21 143.31 -- 282.29 1.52 16.96 9.90 456.07 -- 3.31
TSS tons 421.37 -- -- 0.71 11.68 -- 68.05 0.01 95.63 -- 96.10 0.89 6.36 0.41 1.54 -- 0.09
BOD pounds 45,104 -- -- 257 2,159 -- 14,143 2 9,138 -- 9,477 65 652 339 5,424.74 -- 46.66
FC billion counts 559,439 -- -- 29 57,001 -- 57,919 12 40,218 -- 311,352 529 17,979 20 -- -- 3,618
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-70
TABLE 4-33
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 32% -- -- 0% 1% -- 39% 0% 5% -- 9% 0% 1% 0% 14% -- 0%
TSS 60% -- -- 0% 2% -- 10% 0% 14% -- 14% 0% 1% 0% 0% -- 0%
BOD 52% -- -- 0% 2% -- 16% 0% 11% -- 11% 0% 1% 0% 6% -- 0%
FC 53% -- -- 0% 5% -- 6% 0% 4% -- 30% 0% 2% 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 in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

TABLE 4-34
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.277 -- -- 0.001 0.007 -- 0.341 0.000 0.040 -- 0.078 0.000 0.005 0.003 0.126 -- 0.001
TSS tons/acre 0.116 -- -- 0.000 0.003 -- 0.019 0.000 0.026 -- 0.027 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 -- 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 12.443 -- -- 0.071 0.596 -- 3.902 0.001 2.521 -- 2.614 0.018 0.180 0.093 1.497 -- 0.013
FC billion counts/acre 154.333 -- -- 0.008 15.725 -- 15.978 0.003 11.095 -- 85.893 0.146 4.960 0.006 -- -- 0.998
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-71
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) was
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of
flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow
which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are two assessed plant
communities within this assessment point area. The assessments of quality of these plant
communities range from fair to fairly good. It is important to note that despite their quality
assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife.
Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than
5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year
is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater
than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the
warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and maximum
DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 16
percent reduction in baseline TP loads and a 45 percent reduction in baseline FC loads within the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The major reason for the reduction
in baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC
source loads will be eliminated. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-35. 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 wont necessarily
match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The
potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-36 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-37 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-38 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-39 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-40 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and
TABLE 4-41 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45 percent reduction in FC loading and the 16 percent reduction in TP
loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicates that the
assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and the assessment of FC during the
swimming season would remain moderate. The assessment of TP would remain good. The
assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The assessments of the minimum
and maximum concentrations of DO would remain at good and very good, respectively. 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 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicate that the assessment
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-72
of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) would
remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality
and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-73
TABLE 4-35
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-3
Kinnickinnic
River Upstream
of Confluence
with Wilson Park
Creek
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,011
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

82
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 214
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100
ml)
a

335
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,578
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

91
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 152
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100
ml)
a

153
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.4
Median (mg/l) 8.8
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.068
Median (mg/l) 0.051
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
87
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.68
Median (mg/l) 0.69
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 8.7
Median (mg/l) 3.5
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0030
Median (mg/l) 0.0008
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-74
TABLE 4-36
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS /
YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 383.66 -- -- 2.88 10.39 -- 468.23 0.17 6.65 -- 117.60 0.00 13.22 6.63 -- -- 0.95
TSS tons 144.99 -- -- 0.51 4.33 -- 25.61 0.01 4.00 -- 36.06 -- 4.46 0.27 -- -- 0.03
BOD pounds 16,550 -- -- 184 853 -- 5,695 2 407 -- 3,792 -- 488 227 -- -- 13
FC billion counts 136,226 -- -- 21 14,947 -- 15,471 7 1,190 -- 82,683 -- 8,931 14 -- -- 1,034
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-37
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 38% -- -- 0% 1% -- 46% 0% 1% -- 12% 0% 1% 1% -- -- 0%
TSS 66% -- -- 0% 2% -- 12% 0% 2% -- 16% -- 2% 0% -- -- 0%
BOD 59% -- -- 1% 3% -- 20% 0% 1% -- 13% -- 2% 1% -- -- 0%
FC 52% -- -- 0% 6% -- 6% 0% 0% -- 32% -- 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-75
TABLE 4-38
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.23 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.28 0.00 0.00 -- 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 -- -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.09 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 -- 0.00 0.00 -- -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
10 -- -- 0 1 -- 3 0 0 -- 2 -- 0 0 -- -- 0
FC billion counts/acre
81 -- -- 0 9 -- 9 0 1 -- 49 -- 5 0 -- -- 1
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
TABLE 4-39
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 885.27 -- -- 3.73 20.46 -- 992.69 0.17 111.83 -- 247.35 0.00 15.07 8.58 456.07 -- 3.31
TSS tons 332.52 -- -- 0.65 8.44 -- 54.30 0.01 67.22 -- 75.51 -- 5.08 0.35 1.54 -- 0.09
BOD pounds 38,254 -- -- 238 1,668 -- 12,075 2 6,850 -- 8,021 -- 557 294 5,425 -- 47
FC billion count 312,792 -- -- 27 28,993 -- 32,800 7 20,006 -- 172,639 -- 10,159 18 -- -- 3,618
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-76
TABLE 4-40
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 32% -- -- 0% 1% -- 36% 0% 4% -- 9% 0% 1% 0% 17% -- 0%
TSS tons 61% -- -- 0% 2% -- 10% 0% 12% -- 14% -- 1% 0% 0% -- 0%
BOD pounds 52% -- -- 0% 2% -- 16% 0% 9% -- 11% -- 1% 0% 7% -- 0%
FC billion count 54% -- -- 0% 5% -- 6% 0% 3% -- 30% -- 2% 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 in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

TABLE 4-41
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.244 -- -- 0.001 0.006 -- 0.274 0.000 0.031 -- 0.068 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.126 -- 0.001
TSS tons/acre 0.092 -- -- 0.000 0.002 -- 0.015 0.000 0.019 -- 0.021 -- 0.001 0.000 0.000 -- 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 10.553 -- -- 0.066 0.460 -- 3.331 0.001 1.890 -- 2.213 -- 0.154 0.081 1.497 -- 0.013
FC billion counts/acre 86.290 -- -- 0.007 7.998 -- 9.049 0.002 5.519 -- 47.626 -- 2.803 0.005 -- -- 0.998
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-77
4.6.3. Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-4)
Wilson Park Creek is located in the southeastern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
This tributary flows northwesterly and includes the Edgerton Ditch and its tributary area. The
Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) encompasses 3.5 square miles and includes the
northern half of Mitchell International Airport and Wispark Business Park in the city of Cudahy.
The creek begins in the city of Cudahy, as the Edgerton Ditch, east of Whitnall Avenue and
about mile south of Layton Avenue. Edgerton Ditch flows westerly within a natural channel
and then flows beneath Whitnall and Nicholson Avenues. East of Nicholson Avenue, the
Edgerton Ditch enters enclosed conduit and continues to flow westerly towards Delaware
Avenue. It emerges on the west side of Delaware Avenue and continues to flow westerly within
a straightened natural channel beneath Pennsylvania Avenue where it enters a concrete lined
channel. West of the UP rail line, the Edgerton Channel enters the east side of General Mitchell
International Airport and then changes direction and flows northerly along the east side of the
airport. From this point, the waterway is referred to as Wilson Park Creek. Other tributaries also
flow northwesterly from the city of Cudahy and from the southeastern corner of the airport.
These tributaries flow into an enclosed conduit beneath the airport and eventually flow into
Wilson Park Creek northwest of the airport. The downstream end of the Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-4) is approximately one block west of Howell Avenue in the city of
Milwaukee (Figure 4-20). At this point, the creek exits the Wilson Park Creek assessment point
area (KK-4) and flows into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 139.
Upstream, Wilson Park Creek, including Edgerton Ditch, flow through low and high-density
residential, manufacturing and industrial land uses. Further west and downstream, the creek
flows through (and beneath) General Mitchell International Airport. The width of the riparian
margins, where the creek is not enclosed in conduit, is less than 25 feet. The Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures.
Beyond the land uses adjancent to the creek, the land use within the Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-4) is predominantly transportation (63 percent) due to General
Mitchell International Airport. Recreation, natural areas, and open space make up approximately
12 percent of the total land use. Low-density residential (this is defined in the following table)
land use makes up 9 percent of the total land use while manufacturing and industrial,
agricultural, institutional and governmental, commercial, and high-density residential land uses
compose the remaining 16 percent . Based on an analysis of land use information used to
develop the water quality data, approximately 23 percent of the Wilson Park Creek assessment
point area (KK-4) is impervious. TABLE 4-42 presents the land uses within the Wilson Park
Creek assessment point area.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-79
TABLE 4-42
LAND USE IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.1 3.18%
Low Density Residential 0.3 9.38%
High Density Residential 0.1 1.63%
Commercial 0.1 1.76%
Institutional & Governmental 0.1 2.88%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.4 12.09%
Transportation 2.2 63.31%
Manufacturing and Industrial 0.2 5.77%
Total 3.5 100.00%
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.
Figure 4-20
Land Use Map : KK-4
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-4
Layton Ave
Grange Ave
6
t
h

S
t
H
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
n
i
a

A
v
e
0 840 1,680 420
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-81
Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Wilson Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-4). The municipalities are the cities of Cudahy, Milwaukee
and St. Francis. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 54 percent of the 3.5 square mile area.
The city of Cudahy occupies nearly 43 percent and the city of St. Francis occupies the remaining
3 percent. The extent of the civil division within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area
(KK-4) is presented in TABLE 4-43.
TABLE 4-43
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Cudahy 1.5 42.99%
City of Milwaukee 1.9 54.02%
City of St. Francis 0.1 2.99%
Total 3.5 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in Wilson Park Creek are TP, FC, and TSS. The largest contributors to baseline loads are
commercial (FC and TSS) and grass on hydrologic group C soils (TP). It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water
quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4). These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, the fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See
Figure 4-21, Figure 4-22, and Figure 4-23 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as
a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note:
the black line on Figure 4-15 represents the cumulative number of days, at various
concentrations, throughout the year.
Total phosphorus and TSS were also analyzed in detail. The assessment of TP concentrations
within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area was moderate. The concentrations of TP
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-82
exceed 5 mg/l on some days and are very high during the winter months. This might be caused
by deicing fluids used at General Mitchell International Airport. Deicing fluids often contain
phosphorus compounds that serve as corrosion inhibitors. The concentrations of TP decline
through the late spring, summer and early fall, which may reflect uptake by plants during the
growing season.
Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as poor. The data suggest 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. However, note that the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area
contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed 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, a detailed assessment was also performed on DO data.
During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both
assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). They tended to be somewhat variable within the Wilson Park
Creeks assessment point area (KK-4). On the low end of the range, DO concentrations decline
more than would be expected which suggests that there could be sources of biochemical oxygen
demand within the area. In the past, BOD loadings were likely higher with the use of glycol at
the airport, but now that deicing fluids are captured at GMIA and treated at SSWWTP, BOD
loadings should be declining, thus elevating DO levels, especially during the winter months. The
decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely due to the
decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer 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 4-44. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-45 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-46 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-47
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ Wison Park Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue
Creek (RI 828)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-21
KK-4 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-22
KK-4 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Wilson Park Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue Creek Reach 828
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-23
KK-4 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-86
TABLE 4-44
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-4
Wilson Creek
Upstream of
Holmes Avenue
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,897
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
52
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 609
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
54
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,179
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
67
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 313
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
36
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.5
Median (mg/l) 7.3
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.144
Median (mg/l) 0.04
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
81
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.12
Median (mg/l) 0.5
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 20.1
Median (mg/l) 6.5
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0041
Median (mg/l) 0.0019

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-87
TABLE 4-45
BASELINE LOAD FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 463.11 6.46 2.63 3.48 12.09 80.99 986.79 -- 193.80 0.08 56.67 16.25 0.73 22.67 320.65 -- 14.77
TSS tons 210.53 7.32 3.01 0.47 5.71 2.72 37.14 -- 144.56 0.02 19.68 9.71 0.28 0.75 3.15 -- 0.42
BOD pounds 20,797 290 114 204 1,033 1,115 10,852 -- 12,359 9 1,902 72,667 28 782 5,629.57 -- 208.17
FC
billion
counts 257,538 49 34 23 27,225 1,695 48,792 -- 54,304 4 61,958 5,636 775 46 -- -- 16,143
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-46
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP
21% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 45% -- 9% 0% 3% 1% 0% 1% 15% -- 1%
TSS
47% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 8% -- 32% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% -- 0%
BOD
16% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 8% -- 10% 0% 1% 57% 0% 1% 4% -- 0%
FC
54% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 10% -- 11% 0% 13% 1% 0% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-88
TABLE 4-47
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.40 -- 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 -- 0.01
TSS tons/acre
0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 -- 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
8.40 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.42 0.45 4.38 -- 4.99 0.00 0.77 29.34 0.01 0.32 2.27 -- 0.08
FC billion counts/acre
104 0 0 0 11 1 20 -- 22 0 25 2 0 0 -- -- 7
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-89
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) was evaluated. The
index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow.
Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as moderate. The Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is
another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress
aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important
component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can
also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather
months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters
affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 13
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 45 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 19
percent reduction in baseline TSS loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area
(KK-4). The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in the
RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Year 2020
water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-48. This table also
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 wont necessarily match
the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-49 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-50 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-51 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45 percent reduction in FC loading, the 13 percent reduction in TP loading,
and the 19 percent reduction in TSS loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and
swimming season measures, the assessment of TP would remain moderate and the assessment of
TSS would remain poor. The assessments of minimum and maximum DO concentrations would
remain unchanged 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 2020 Regional
Plan conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-4) would remain unchanged as moderate. See Chapter 6, section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-90
TABLE 4-48
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-4
Wilson Park
Creek Upstream
of Holmes
Avenue Creek
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,091
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
58
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 330
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
126
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,024
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
75
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 155
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
80
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.6
Median (mg/l) 7.3
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.141
Median (mg/l) 0.039
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
83
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.08
Median (mg/l) 0.45
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 15.1
Median (mg/l) 5.4
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0035
Median (mg/l) 0.0017

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-91
TABLE 4-49
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 460.22 -- -- 2.56 12.47 63.95 751.26 -- 183.81 -- 55.28 14.13 0.75 18.70 320.65 -- 3.21
TSS tons 176.73 -- -- 0.35 4.77 2.07 27.30 -- 120.85 -- 16.17 7.44 0.24 0.62 3.15 -- 0.09
BOD pounds 20,117 -- -- 150 960 925 8,693 -- 11,169 -- 1,927 72,547 29 645 5,630 -- 45
FC billion counts 149,557 -- -- 17 14,209 930 25,857 -- 31,105 -- 33,559 2,879 440 38 -- -- 3,511
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-50
YEAR 2020 LOADS THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (PERCENT)
Loads

Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 24% -- -- 0% 1% 3% 40% -- 10% -- 3% 1% 0% 1% 17% -- 0%
TSS 49% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 8% -- 34% -- 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% -- 0%
BOD 16% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 7% -- 9% -- 2% 59% 0% 1% 5% -- 0%
FC 57% -- -- 0% 5% 0% 10% -- 12% -- 13% 1% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-92
TABLE 4-51
YEAR 2020 LOADS THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.19 -- -- 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.30 -- 0.07 -- 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 -- 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.07 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 -- 0.05 -- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
8 -- -- 0 0 0 4 -- 5 -- 1 29 0 0 2 -- 0
FC billion counts/acre
60 -- -- 0 6 0 10 -- 13 -- 14 1 0 0 -- -- 1
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-93
4.6.4. Holmes Avenue Creek (Assessment Point KK-5)
Holmes Avenue Creek is located in the southern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
This tributary flows northerly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Holmes Avenue
Creek assessment point area (KK-5) encompasses 1.7 square miles. The creek begins west of I-
94 about mile north of Grange Avenue in the city of Milwaukee. From there, it flows
northeasterly beneath I-94 and then enters enclosed conduit. The creek continues to flow
northeasterly to a point just east of the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line and about mile west of
Holler Park. At this point, the creek emerges and flows northerly within a concrete-line channel.
In the vicinity of 10
th
Street and Carpenter Avenue, the creek changes direction and flows
easterly past 6
th
Street and then changes direction again and flows northerly toward Layton
Avenue. Approximately 500 feet north of Layton Avenue, the creek flows into the Wilson Park
Creek assessment point area (Figure 4-24).
The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area also contains a tributary to Holmes Avenue
Creek. This tributary flows northeasterly from the airport spur to its confluence with Holmes
Avenue Creek, just over a mile southwest of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues.
Upstream of the confluence, the one-mile reach of this tributary is entirely enclosed within
conduit.
Holmes Avenue Creek flows through high-density residential, manufacturing and industrial land
uses. Most of the creek flows within enclosed conduit or concrete-lined channel. The Holmes
Avenue Creek assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. The width of
the riparian margin is narrow; the width of the riparian margin does not exceed 25 feet.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Holmes Avenue Creek
assessment point area (KK-5) is predominantly transportation (48 percent), including General
Mitchell International Airport, highways, and large parking lots. Low-density residential makes
up approximately 25 percent of the total land use (this is defined in the following table).
Recreation, natural areas, and open space land use make up 9 percent of the total land use while
manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and
governmental land uses compose the remaining 18 percent. Based on an analysis of land use
information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 43 percent of the Holmes
Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) is impervious. TABLE 4-52 presents the land uses
within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-95
TABLE 4-52
LAND USE WITHIN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.4 25.32%
High Density Residential
2
0.1 5.13%
Commercial 0.1 3.23%
Institutional & Governmental 0.0 2.29%
Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space
0.2 8.74%
Transportation 0.8 47.85%
Manufacturing and Industrial 0.1 7.44%
Total 1.7 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-24
Land Use Map : KK-5
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-5
Layton Ave
Edgerton Ave
Grange Ave
2
7
t
h

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
1
3
t
h

S
t
H
o
w
e
l
l

A
v
e
0 670 1,340 335
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-97
The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) is occupied by one municipality. The
city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 1.7 square mile area, as shown in TABLE 4-53.
TABLE 4-53
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq
mi)
Percent of Assessment
Point Area within Civil
Division
City of Milwaukee 1.7 100.00%
Total 1.7 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in Holmes Avenue Creek are TP and FC. The largest contributor to baseline FC and BOD
loads are commercial land use; the largest contributors to baseline TP loads are industrial,
commercial, and grass on hydrologic group C soils. It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area. These sources may
be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified
sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant
loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst
the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, the fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as poor for the annual measure and good for the swimming season
measure. See Figure 4-25, Figure 4-26, and Figure 4-27 for FC data as a function of days per
year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow,
respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-19 represents the cumulative number of days, at
various concentrations, throughout the year.
The concentrations of TP were characterized as moderate. The concentrations of TP tend to be
greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 75
percent of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are present
within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5).
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS
data. The concentrations of minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as
good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO,
water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations exhibit considerable variability,
particularly during the spring months. This variability could be explained by excessive attached
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-98
algae growth or inputs of biochemical oxygen demand. The decline in DO concentrations during
the summer months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer
water.
TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. 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.
However, note that the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) contains concrete-
lined and / or enclosed 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. 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 4-54. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 and
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-55 presents the annual pollutant
loads, TABLE 4-56 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-57 presents
the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ Holmes Avenue Creek (RI 830)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-25
KK-5 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-26
KK-5 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Holmes Avenue Creek Reach 830
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-27
KK-5 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-102
TABLE 4-54
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,178
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
72
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 385
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
106
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,162
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
86
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 213
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
58
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.9
Median (mg/l) 9.8
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
92
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.131
Median (mg/l) 0.072
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
77
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.24
Median (mg/l) 0.91
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 9.7
Median (mg/l) 3.8
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0040
Median (mg/l) 0.0009


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-103
TABLE 4-55
BASELINE LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 415.11 -- -- 1.33 4.56 3.62 376.91 0.27 50.50 -- 46.62 104.11 0.73 2.47 441.64 -- --
TSS tons 188.71 -- -- 0.18 2.15 0.12 14.18 0.01 37.66 -- 16.19 62.19 0.28 0.08 0.40 -- --
BOD pounds 18,642 -- -- 78 390 50 4,145 3 3,220 -- 1,565 16,274 28 85 1,123.94 -- --
FC
billion
counts 230,847 -- -- 9 10,271 76 18,636 16 14,149 -- 50,971 36,112 775 5 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-56
BASELINE LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 29% -- -- 0% 0% 0% 26% 0% 3% -- 3% 7% 0% 0% 31% -- --
TSS 59% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 4% 0% 12% -- 5% 19% 0% 0% 0% -- --
BOD 41% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 9% 0% 7% -- 3% 36% 0% 0% 2% -- --
FC 64% -- -- 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 4% -- 14% 10% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-104
TABLE 4-57
BASELINE LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.39 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.05 -- 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.41 -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.18 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 -- 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --
BOD pounds/acre
17.37 -- -- 0.07 0.36 0.05 3.86 0.00 3.00 -- 1.46 15.17 0.03 0.08 1.05 -- --
FC billion counts/acre
215 -- -- 0 10 0 17 0 13 -- 48 34 1 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-105
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) was evaluated.
The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream
flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the
potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There is one assessed plant community located
within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area. The quality assessment of the plant
communtiy is fair. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat
for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability.
Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO
concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However,
excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during
warm weather months. The concentrations of minimum and maximum DO concentrations were
both assessed as good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more
detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under baseline
conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in an 11
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 45 percent reduction in baseline FC loads, and a 16
percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area
(KK-5). The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in the
RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Year 2020
water quality is presented in TABLE 4-58. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-59 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-60 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-61 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45 percent reduction in FC loading, the 11 percent reduction in TP loading,
and the 16 percent reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and
good for the swimming season measure. The assessment of TP would remain moderate and both
the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain good during the warm weather
months. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged 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 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicate that the assessment of
flashiness within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) would remain
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-106
unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and
flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-107
TABLE 4-58
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,824
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
73
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 213
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
199
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,192
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
85
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 120
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
111
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 9.9
Median (mg/l) 9.8
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
92
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.124
Median (mg/l) 0.069
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
78
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.18
Median (mg/l) 0.86
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 7.8
Median (mg/l) 3.1
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0033
Median (mg/l) 0.0008
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-108
TABLE 4-59
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 363.64 -- -- 1.13 4.02 2.73 288.77 0.17 47.26 -- 40.49 90.19 0.61 1.59 441.64 -- --
TSS tons 144.94 -- -- 0.15 1.66 0.09 10.49 0.01 31.07 -- 12.32 47.48 0.20 0.05 0.40 -- --
BOD pounds 15,602 -- -- 66 325 39 3,341 2 2,872 -- 1,310 15,495 22 55 1,124 -- --
FC
billion
counts 126,860 -- -- 7 5,607 40 9,939 7 8,358 -- 27,581 19,742 400 3 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-60
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP
28% -- -- 0% 0% 0% 23% 0% 4% -- 3% 7% 0% 0% 34% -- --
TSS
58% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 4% 0% 12% -- 5% 19% 0% 0% 0% -- --
BOD
39% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 7% -- 3% 38% 0% 0% 3% -- --
FC
64% -- -- 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 4% -- 14% 10% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-109
TABLE 4-61
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.34 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.04 -- 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.41 -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.14 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 -- 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- --
BOD pounds/acre
15 -- -- 0 0 0 3 0 3 -- 1 14 0 0 1 -- --
FC billion counts/acre
118 -- -- 0 5 0 9 0 8 -- 26 18 0 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-110
4.6.5. Villa Mann Creek (Assessment Point KK-6)
Villa Mann Creek is located in the south-central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
This tributary flows northeasterly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek.
The Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) encompasses 1.1 square miles. The creek
begins just northeast of 35
th
Street and Layton Avenue, about mile north of Barnard Park and
Greenfield Middle School. From this point, the creek flows northeasterly, within a natural
channel, through a high-density residential neighborhood and then flows beneath I-894. North of
I-894, the creek continues to flow northeasterly towards 27
th
Street. On the east side of 27
th

Street and north of the 27
th
Street interchange on I-894, the creek enters enclosed conduit and
flows easterly to a point about mile northeast of the interchange (Figure 4-28). This point
marks the downstream terminus of Villa Mann Creek assessment point (KK-6). This is also Villa
Mann Creeks confluence with another stream within the assessment point area. This is a mile-
long tributary that flows northerly within enclosed conduit and a natural channel. Downstream,
Villa Mann Creek flows into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 136.
The upstream and westernmost reach of Villa Mann Creek, south of I-894, flows through a high
density residential area. North of this area, downstream, the creek flows through transportation
land uses associated with I-894 and the 27
th
Street interchange on I-894. East of 27
th
Street, the
creek flows within enclosed conduit, beneath an undeveloped area located east of the 27
th
Street
commercial area. In general, the width of the riparian margin along Villa Mann Creek is
relatively narrow. The width is typically less than 25 feet, but in some areas located north of I-
894, the riparian width widens to between 50 and 75 feet (but never exceeds 75 feet). There are
three dams or drop structures located within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area.

Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Villa Mann Creek assessment
point area (KK-6) is predominantly low-density residential (42 percent) and high-density
residential (8 percent) land uses (these are defined in the following table). Interstate highway,
local roads and arterials contribute to transportation land uses that make up approximately 34
percent of the total land use. Commercial land use along with recreation, natural areas, and open
space, institutional and governmental, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the
remaining 16 percent. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water
quality data, approximately 34 percent of the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) is
impervious. TABLE 4-62 presents the land uses within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point
area.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-111

TABLE 4-62
LAND USE IN THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.4 41.53%
High Density Residential
2
0.1 8.35%
Commercial 0.1 6.84%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.0 3.11%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.1 6.17%
Transportation 0.4 33.91%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.0 0.09%
Total 1.1 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-28
Land Use Map : KK-6
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-6
Bolivar Ave
Layton Ave
Edgerton Ave
Grange Ave
2
7
t
h

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
1
3
t
h

S
t
0 670 1,340 335
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-113
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Villa Mann
Creek assessment point area (KK-6). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and
Milwaukee. Nearly 74 percent of the 1.1 square mile area is located within the city of
Greenfield. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 26 percent. The extent of the civil
divisions within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-63.
TABLE 4-63
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE VILLA MANN ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Greenfield 0.8 74.05%
City of Milwaukee 0.3 25.95%
Total 1.1 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) are FC and DO. The largest
contributors to baseline loads are commercial (FC and BOD) and grass on hydrologic group C
soils (TP). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in
turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6). These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, the fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as poor for the annual measure and good for the swimming season
measure. See Figure 4-29, Figure 4-30, and Figure 4-31 for FC data as a function of days per
year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow,
respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-23 represents the cumulative number of days, at
various concentrations, throughout the year.
Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed
as poor during the warm weather months. The maximum DO concentrations were characterized
as very good during the same time period (see habitat section for details on the interactions of
DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations within the Villa Mann
Creek assessment point area (KK-6) exhibit considerable variability, particularly during the
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-114
spring months. This variability could be explained by excessive attached algae growth or inputs
of biochemical oxygen demand. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is
typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. However, the
decline during the summer months is greater than would normally be expected.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on TP and TSS
data. The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. The concentrations of TP tend to be
greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 50
percent of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are present
within Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6).
The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. 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. However, the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) contains concrete-
lined and / or enclosed 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. See
Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analyses described above, the modeled baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-64. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-65 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-66 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-67
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ Villa Mann Creek (RI 820)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-29
KK-6 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-30
KK-6 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Villa Mann Creek Reach 820
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-31
KK-6 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-118
TABLE 4-64
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN VILLA MANN CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-6
Villa Mann
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,565
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
72
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
557
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard (<200
cells per 100 ml)
38
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,339
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
87
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
346
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard (<200
cells per 100 ml)
19
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.4
Median (mg/l) 6.6
Percent compliance with
dissolved oxygen standard (>5
mg/l)
70
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.061
Median (mg/l) 0.034
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
85
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.70
Median (mg/l) 0.74
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 8.9
Median (mg/l) 5.0
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0041
Median (mg/l) 0.0013

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-119
TABLE 4-65
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 200.84 -- -- 0.36 3.62 5.34 281.04 -- 0.47 -- 41.87 63.57 1.01 1.11 -- -- --
TSS tons 91.31 -- -- 0.05 1.71 0.18 10.58 -- 0.35 -- 14.54 37.97 0.39 0.04 -- -- --
BOD pounds 9,019 -- -- 21 309 74 3,091 -- 30 -- 1,406 2,725 39 38 -- -- --
FC billion counts 111,690 -- -- 2 8,151 112 13,896 -- 131 -- 45,782 22,050 1,065 2 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
** = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-66
BASELINE LOADS THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 34% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 47% -- 0% -- 7% 11% 0% 0% -- -- --
TSS 58% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 7% -- 0% -- 9% 24% 0% 0% -- -- --
BOD 54% -- -- 0% 2% 0% 18% -- 0% -- 8% 16% 0% 0% -- -- --
FC 55% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 7% -- 0% -- 23% 11% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-120
TABLE 4-67
BASELINE LOADS THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.29 -- -- 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.41 -- 0.00 -- 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.13 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 -- 0.00 -- 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
13.17 -- -- 0.03 0.45 0.11 4.51 -- 0.04 -- 2.05 3.98 0.06 0.06
-- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
163 -- -- 0 12 0 20 -- 0 -- 67 32 2 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-121
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) was evaluated. The
index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow.
In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the potential to
disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Villa Mann Creek assessment point area does not contain
any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat
suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient
DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However,
excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during
warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm
weather months. The maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the
same time period. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water
quality parameters affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 45 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 17
percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area
(KK-6). The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in the
RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Year 2020
water quality is presented in TABLE 4-68. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-69 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-70 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-71 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45 percent reduction in FC loading, the 11 percent reduction in TP loading
and the 17 percent reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and
remain good for the swimming season measure. The assessments of minimum DO
concentrations would remain poor and the maximum DO concentrations would remain very
good. The assessment of TP would remain good and the assessment of TSS would remain
unchanged 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 2020 Regional Plan conditions
indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area
would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-122
TABLE 4-68
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE VILLA MANN CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-6
Villa Mann
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,041
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
73
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 309
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
122
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,294
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
85
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 196
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
68
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.4
Median (mg/l) 6.7
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
71
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.054
Median (mg/l) 0.032
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
87
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.62
Median (mg/l) 0.65
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 7.3
Median (mg/l) 3.7
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0033
Median (mg/l) 0.0010
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-123
TABLE 4-69
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 178.26 -- -- 0.19 3.19 4.16 216.36 0.03 0.00 -- 36.83 55.12 0.62 0.39 -- -- --
TSS tons 70.98 -- -- 0.03 1.31 0.13 7.86 0.00 0.00 -- 11.20 29.02 0.21 0.01 -- -- --
BOD pounds 7,652 -- -- 11 257 60 2,504 -- -- -- 1,194 2,252 23 13 -- -- --
FC billion counts 62,117 -- -- 1 4,428 61 7,447 1 1 -- 25,023 12,067 407 1 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-70
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 36% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 44% 0% 0% -- 7% 11% 0% 0% -- -- --
TSS 59% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 7% 0% 0% -- 9% 24% 0% 0% -- -- --
BOD 55% -- -- 0% 2% 0% 18% -- -- -- 9% 16% 0% 0% -- -- --
FC 56% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 0% -- 22% 11% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-124
TABLE 4-71
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.26 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.00 -- 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.10 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
11 -- -- 0 0 0 4 -- -- -- 2 3 0 0 -- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
91 -- -- 0 6 0 11 0 0 -- 37 18 1 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-125
4.6.6. Cherokee Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-7)
Cherokee Park Creek is located in the south-central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
This tributary flows northeasterly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Cherokee Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-7) encompasses one square mile. The creek begins east of the
Park and Ride facility located on the north side of I-894 and east of Loomis Road within the city
of Greenfield, Wisconsin. From this point, the creek flows northeasterly within a natural channel.
The creek enters enclosed conduit at 36
th
Street and generally continues to flow north and
northeasterly. The creek emerges along the south side of Arlington Cemetery, from this point,
the creek flows northerly within enclosed conduit and concrete-lined channel towards the center
of the cemetery.
There is also a tributary to the Cherokee Park Creek that flows northeasterly through the
Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). This tributary generally flows within a
natural channel and begins east of Good Hope Cemetery, flows underneath 43
rd
Street, and then
flows northeasterly through Zablocki Park and Golf Course. At the intersection of Loomis Road
and 35
th
Street, the tributary changes direction and flows easterly towards the center of Arlington
Cemetery and its confluence with Cherokee Park Creek. From the center of the cemetery, the
creek flows northerly, beneath Howard Avenue, and along the west side of the Loomis Center
Mall. On the north side of Loomis Road, the creek continues to flow northerly within enclosed
conduit beneath the Point Loomis Shopping Center (Figure 4-32). On the north side of Morgan
Avenue and immedialy east of Curtin Elementary School, Cherokee Park Creek flows into
Wilson Park Creek and into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 136.
With a few exceptions, the width of the riparian margin along Cherokee Park Creek is relatively
narrow and less than 25 feet. Approximately 20 percent of the creek within the assessment point
area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75feet. There is a dam or drop structurewithin the
Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area. Towards the southern headwaters of the creek, it
flows through low density residential land uses and then flows through the Arlington Cemetery.
Between the north side of the cemetery and its confluence with Wilson Park Creek, Cherokee
Park Creek flows through high-density residential and commercial land uses.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Cherokee Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-7) is predominantly transportation, including highways, local roads
and arterial streets (31 percent). High-density residential (18 percent) and low-density
residential (17 percent) also contribute to the total land use (these are defined in the following
table). The two large cemeteries contribute to institutional and governmental land uses that
make up nearly 16 percent of the total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along
with commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 17 percent.
Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 27 percent of the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) is
impervious. TABLE 4-72 presents the land uses within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment
point area.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-126

TABLE 4-72
LAND USE IN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.2 17.28%
High Density Residential
2
0.2 17.61%
Commercial 0.0 3.04%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.2 15.99%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.1 13.99%
Transportation 0.3 31.08%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.0 1.01%
Total 1.0 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-32
Land Use Map : KK-7
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Morgan Ave
Morgan Ave
Howard Ave
Bolivar Ave
Layton Ave
6
0
t
h

S
t
4
3
r
d

S
2
7
t
h
3
5
t
h
2
0
t
1
3
t
S
t
t
S
t
S
t
KK-7
0 670 1,340 335
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-128
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Cherokee Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-7). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and
Milwaukee. Nearly 91 percent of the 1.0 square mile assessment point area is located within the
city of Greenfield. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 9 percent. The extent of the
civil divisions within the area is presented in TABLE 4-73.
TABLE 4-73
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Greenfield 0.9 90.86%
City of Milwaukee 0.1 9.14%
Total 1.0 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in Cherokee Park Creek are FC and DO. The largest contributor to baseline loads is
commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant
loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming
season measure. See Figure 4-33, Figure 4-34, and Figure 4-35 for FC data as a function of days
per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow,
respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-27 represents the cumulative number of days, at
various concentrations, throughout the year.
Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed
as poor during the warm weather months. During the same time period, the maximum DO
concentrations were characterized as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions
of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations within the Cherokee
Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) exhibit considerable variability, particularly during the
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-129
spring months. This variability could be explained by the excessive growth of attached algae or
inputs of biochemical oxygen demand. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer
months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water.
However, the decline during the summer months is greater than would normally be expected.
During these months, the concentrations of DO fall below the water quality standard more than
75 percent of the time.
In addition to the parameters of concern, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also
performed. The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. The concentrations of TP tend
to be greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly
50 percent of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are
present within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). Total suspended solids
concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are
primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled
water quality under baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed assessments described above, the modeled baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-74. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-75 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-76 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-77
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

Kinnickinnic River @ Cherokee Park Creek (RI 19)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-33
KK-7 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-34
KK-7 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Cherokee Park Creek Reach 019
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-35
KK-7 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-133
TABLE 4-74
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY AT CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-7
Cherokee
Park Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 4,715
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
75
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
453
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard (<200
cells per 100 ml)
47
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,187
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
87
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
337
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard (<200
cells per 100 ml)
19
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.3
Median (mg/l) 6.5
Percent compliance with
dissolved oxygen standard (>5
mg/l)
71
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.054
Median (mg/l) 0.033
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
88
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.67
Median (mg/l) 0.59
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 7.7
Median (mg/l) 5.0
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0036
Median (mg/l) 0.0012

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-134
TABLE 4-75
BASELINE LOADS FOR CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 140.17 -- -- 1.32 0.33 -- 222.21 0.02 3.46 -- 29.74 36.18 8.90 1.63 -- -- --
TSS tons 58.81 -- -- 0.23 0.15 -- 12.23 0.00 2.31 -- 10.12 21.23 3.34 0.07 -- -- --
BOD pounds 6,295 -- -- 84 29 -- 2,542 0 221 -- 998 1,552 342 56 -- -- --
FC billion counts 78,076 -- -- 9 755 -- 10,412 1 972 -- 32,803 12,572 9,433 3 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-76
BASELINE LOADS FOR CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 32% -- -- 0% 0% -- 50% 0% 1% -- 7% 8% 2% 0% -- -- --
TSS 54% -- -- 0% 0% -- 11% 0% 2% -- 9% 20% 3% 0% -- -- --
BOD 52% -- -- 1% 0% -- 21% 0% 2% -- 8% 13% 3% 0% -- -- --
FC 54% -- -- 0% 1% -- 7% 0% 1% -- 23% 9% 7% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-135
TABLE 4-77
BASELINE LOADS FOR CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.23 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.36 0.00 0.01 -- 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.10 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
10.24 -- -- 0.14 0.05 -- 4.14 0.00 0.36 -- 1.62 2.52 0.56 0.09 -- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
127 -- -- 0 1 -- 17 0 2 -- 53 20 15 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-136
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) was evaluated.
The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream
flow. In this area, the flashiness was assessed as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests
that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the potential
to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area does not
contain an assessed plant community. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat
suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient
DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However,
excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during
warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm
weather months. During the same time period, the maximum DO concentrations were
characterized as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and
water quality parameters affecting habitat under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 44
percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 15 percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within
the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). The major reason for the reduction in
baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source
loads will be eliminated. Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is
presented in TABLE 4-78. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter
discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation
criteria that may have been 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 water quality special variance standards.
TABLE 4-79 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-80 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-81 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 44 percent reduction in FC loading and the 15 percent reduction in BOD
loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicates that the
assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure and would deteriorate from
good to moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of the minimum concentration of
DO would remain poor and the assessment of the maximum concentration of DO would remain
very good. The assessment of TP would remain good and TSS would remain unchanged 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 2020 Regional Plan condition indicates that the
assessment of flashiness within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area would remain
unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and
flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-137
TABLE 4-78
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-7
Cherokee Park
Creek
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,632
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
75
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 265
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
137
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,260
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
85
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 203
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
66
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 7.3
Median (mg/l) 6.7
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
71
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.049
Median (mg/l) 0.031
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
89
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.61
Median (mg/l) 0.53
Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) 6.7
Median (mg/l) 4.0
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0030
Median (mg/l) 0.0010
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-138
TABLE 4-79
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP lbs 119.37 -- -- 1.17 0.65 -- 176.95 0.02 5.41 -- 27.49 32.01 8.28 0.99 -- -- --
TSS tons 44.44 -- -- 0.21 0.27 -- 9.68 0.00 3.25 -- 8.29 16.90 2.75 0.04 -- -- --
BOD pounds 5,174 -- -- 75 53 -- 2,152 -- 331 -- 906 1,318 310 34 -- -- --
FC billion counts 41,924 -- -- 8 917 -- 5,847 1 968 -- 18,836 7,086 5,455 2 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-80
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 32% -- -- 0% 0% -- 48% 0% 1% -- 7% 9% 2% 0% -- -- --
TSS 52% -- -- 0% 0% -- 11% 0% 4% -- 10% 20% 3% 0% -- -- --
BOD 50% -- -- 1% 1% -- 21% -- 3% -- 9% 13% 3% 0% -- -- --
FC 52% -- -- 0% 1% -- 7% 0% 1% -- 23% 9% 7% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-139
TABLE 4-81
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.19 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.29 0.00 0.01 -- 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.07 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.00 0.01 -- 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
8 -- -- 0 0 -- 4 -- 1 -- 1 2 1 0 -- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
68 -- -- 0 1 -- 10 0 2 -- 31 12 9 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-140
4.6.7. Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-8)
This portion of the Wilson Park Creek is located in the central portion of the Kinnickinnic River
watershed. This tributary flows northwesterly and includes the downstream portion of Villa
Mann Creek and tributary area. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8)
encompasses 3.8 square miles and begins at the downstream end of the Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area (KK-4). The beginning point is approximately located about 500 feet
northwest of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues. From this point, within a concrete-
lined channel, the creek flows westerly toward 5
th
Street and then changes direction and flows
northwesterly toward the intersection of Armour Avenue and 6
th
Street. On the west side of 6
th

Street, a natural channel replaces the concrete-lined channel. The creek continues to flow
northwesterly towards the point where I-94/43 passess over 13
th
Street. About 600 feet southeast
of that point, the creek re-enters a concrete-lined channel and flows under the interstate and 13
th

Street and re-enters a natural channel west of 13
th
Street, north of Bolivar Avenue. The creek
continues to flow northwesterly into Wilson Park to its confluence with Villa Mann Creek on the
west side of the park. From this point, the creek changes direction and flows northerly and then
westerly past the Wilson Recreation Center towards the northwestern corner of Wilson Park. The
creek enters a concrete-lined channel west of 20
th
Street. From the northwestern corner of the
park, the creek flows northerly within a concrete-lined channel beneath Howard Avenue toward
the Point Loomis Shopping Center. South of the commercial area, the creek enters enclosed
conduit and flows beneath the shopping center and emerges east of Curtin Elementary School.
The creek then flows northerly within a concrete-lined channel to Euclid Avenue where it enters
enclosed conduit and flows along the west side of St. Lukes Medical Center to its confluence
with the Kinnickinnic River mainstem (Figure 4-36).
In addition to the places noted above, the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) also
contains Mount Olivet Cemetery, the eastern third of Arlingon Cemetery, a portion of St.
Adalberts Cemetery, the southeastern quarter of Alverno College and the Second Home
Cemetery. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop
structures. The riparian width exceeds 75 feet along about 10 percent of the creek in this
assessment point area.
The land use within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) is predominantly
transportation (34 percent), including highways, local roads and arterial streets. High-density
residential (23 percent) and low-density residential (12 percent) also contribute to the total land
use (these are defined in the following table). Wilson Park contributes to recreation, natural
areas, and open space land use and makes up nearly 15 percent of the total land use. Institutional
and governmental, along with commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose
the remaining 16 percent. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 31 percent of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area
(KK-8) is impervious. TABLE4-82 presents the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek
assessment point area.


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-142
TABLE 4-82
LAND USE IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq
mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.5 12.39%
High Density Residential
2
0.9 23.32%
Commercial 0.1 3.98%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.3 9.32%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.6 14.74%
Transportation 1.3 33.57%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.1 2.68%
Total 3.8 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-36
Land Use Map : KK-8
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK-8
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

A
v
e
Oklahoma Ave
4
3
r
d

S
t
2
7
t
h

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
1
3
t
h

S
t
C
h
a
s
e

A
v
e
C
l
e
m
e
n
t

A
v
e
S
t
S
t
h

S
t
h

S
t
S
t
0 770 1,540 385
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-144
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Wilson Park
Creek assessment point area (KK-8). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and
Milwaukee. Nearly 94 percent of the 3.8 square mile area is located within the city of
Milwaukee. The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 6 percent. The extent of the civil
divisions within the area is presented in TABLE 4-83.
TABLE 4-83
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment
Point Area within Civil
Division
City of Greenfield 0.2 5.70%
City of Milwaukee 3.6 94.30%
Total 3.8 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS, however the parameters of
focus within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) are TP and FC. The largest
contributors to baseline loads are commercial land uses for FC and BOD and grass on hydrologic
group C soils for TP. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant
loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See
Figure 4-37, Figure 4-38, and Figure 4-39 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as
a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note:
the black line on Figure 4-31 represents the cumulative number of days, at various
concentrations, throughout the year.
The concentrations of TP were characterized as moderate. They are more consistent and
generally lower during the late spring, summer and early fall. This may be related in part to
uptake by plants during the growing season. During the winter months, the concentration of TP
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-145
increases; this could be related to de-icing activities at the airport. De-icing chemicals contain
phosphorus that serve as corrosion inhibitors.
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. 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. However, note that the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) contains
concrete-lined and / or enclosed 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. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under baseline
conditions.
In addition to the detailed assessments described above, the modeled baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-84. 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 wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-85 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-86 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-87
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads
from the assessment point areas KK-4, KK-5, KK-6, KK-7, are also estimated within the Wilson
Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). TABLE 4-88 presents the cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-89 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and
TABLE 4-90 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ Wilson park Creek, USGS Gage (RI 818)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-37
KK-8 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-38
KK-8 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
Wilson Park Creek (USGS Gage) Reach 818
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-39
KK-8 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-149
TABLE 4-84
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY AT WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-8
Wilson Park
Creek, USGS
Gauge
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,124
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
56
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 697
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
35
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,552
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
73
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 357
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
26
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 10.9
Median (mg/l) 11.2
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.116
Median (mg/l) 0.055
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
77
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.96
Median (mg/l) 0.7
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 14.1
Median (mg/l) 4.8
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0044
Median (mg/l) 0.0018


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-150
TABLE 4-85
BASELINE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 579.21 -- -- 3.34 9.73 1.40 828.40 1.89 44.01 -- 113.44 115.47 20.83 8.98 -- -- --
TSS tons 252.75 -- -- 0.53 4.55 0.05 38.00 0.08 32.27 -- 38.91 68.97 7.83 0.33 -- -- --
BOD pounds 26,011 -- -- 206 832 19 9,284 20 2,807 -- 3,808 4,950 801 309 -- -- --
FC billion counts 322,375 -- -- 23 21,940 29 39,947 110 12,335 -- 124,694 40,051 22,075 18 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-86
BASELINE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 34% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 48% 0% 3% -- 7% 7% 1% 1% -- -- --
TSS 57% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 9% 0% 7% -- 9% 16% 2% 0% -- -- --
BOD 53% -- -- 0% 2% 0% 19% 0% 6% -- 8% 10% 2% 1% -- -- --
FC 55% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 2% -- 21% 7% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-151
TABLE 4-87
BASELINE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.27 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.02 -- 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.12 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 -- 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
11.94 -- -- 0.09 0.38 0.01 4.26 0.01 1.29 -- 1.75 2.27 0.37 0.14 -- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
148 -- -- 0 10 0 18 0 6 -- 57 18 10 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
TABLE 4-88
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) ( (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 1798.45 6.46 2.63 9.84 30.33 91.35 2695.35 2.19 292.24 0.08 288.33 335.59 32.20 36.87 762.29 -- 14.77
TSS tons 802.11 7.32 3.01 1.47 14.28 3.07 112.13 0.09 217.15 0.02 99.44 200.07 12.11 1.27 3.55 -- 0.42
BOD pounds 80,764 290 114 594 2,593 1,258 29,915 23 18,637 9 9,680 98,167 1,239 1,271 6,753.51 -- 208.17
FC billion counts 1,000,525 49 34 67 68,342 1,912 131,683 127 81,891 4 316,208 116,421 34,123 74 -- -- 16,143
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-152
TABLE 4-89
BASELINE CUMULAIVE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) ( (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 42% 0% 5% 0% 5% 5% 1% 1% 12% -- 0%
TSS 54% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 15% 0% 7% 14% 1% 0% 0% -- 0%
BOD 32% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 12% 0% 7% 0% 4% 39% 0% 1% 3% -- 0%
FC 57% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 5% 0% 18% 7% 2% 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 in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
TABLE 4-90
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.256 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.013 0.384 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.041 0.048 0.005 0.005 0.108 -- 0.002
TSS tons/acre 0.114 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.014 0.028 0.002 0.000 0.001 -- 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 11.493 0.041 0.016 0.085 0.369 0.179 4.257 0.003 2.652 0.001 1.377 13.969 0.176 0.181 0.961 -- 0.030
FC billion counts/acre 142.374 0.007 0.005 0.010 9.725 0.272 18.738 0.018 11.653 0.001 44.996 16.567 4.856 0.011 -- -- 2.297
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-153
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) was evaluated. The
index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow.
In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the potential to
disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are two assessed plant communities within the Wilson
Park Creek assessment point area.Both of these plant communities were assessed as poor. It is
important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide
necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting
habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining
sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat.
However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life,
especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were
assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more
detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under baseline
conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 46 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 16
percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area
(KK-8). The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in the
RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Modeled Year
2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-91. This table also
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 wont necessarily match
the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-92 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-93 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-94 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-95 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), TABLE 4-96
presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-97
presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 46 percent reduction in FC loading, the 17 percent reduction in TP loading
and the 16 percent reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure, but
improve from poor to moderate during the swimming season. The assessments of the minimum
and maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. The assessment of TP would remain
moderate and the assessment of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding
Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-154
assessments in SEWRPC planning report No. 50 which are based on water quality regulatory
standards. Modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicate that the assessment of
flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) would remain unchanged
as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under
Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-155
TABLE 4-91
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-8
Wilson Park
Creek, USGS
Gauge
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 2,794
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
63
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 386
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
99
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,315
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<400 cells per
100 ml)
79
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 189
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<200 cells per 100
ml)
63
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 10.9
Median (mg/l) 11.2
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.110
Median (mg/l) 0.053
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
79
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 0.91
Median (mg/l) 0.63
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 11.3
Median (mg/l) 3.7
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0037
Median (mg/l) 0.0015


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-156
TABLE 4-92
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 516.47 -- -- 3.08 8.65 1.08 647.48 1.57 37.75 -- 98.18 100.00 18.69 7.85 -- -- --
TSS tons 199.65 -- -- 0.49 3.57 0.03 29.22 0.06 24.54 -- 29.89 52.65 6.26 0.29 -- -- --
BOD pounds 22,232 -- -- 190 703 16 7,676 18 2,296 -- 3,183 4,085 694 270 -- -- --
FC billion counts 176,667 -- -- 21 11,805 16 21,859 64 6,286 -- 66,440 20,501 12,408 16 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-93
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 36% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 45% 0% 3% -- 7% 7% 1% 1% -- -- --
TSS 58% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 7% -- 9% 15% 2% 0% -- -- --
BOD 54% -- -- 0% 2% 0% 19% 0% 6% -- 8% 10% 2% 1% -- -- --
FC 56% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 2% -- 21% 6% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-157
TABLE 4-94
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.24 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.02 -- 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 -- -- --
TSS tons/acre
0.09 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 -- 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 -- -- --
BOD pounds/acre
10 -- -- 0 0 0 4 0 1 -- 1 2 0 0 -- -- --
FC billion counts/acre
81 -- -- 0 5 0 10 0 3 -- 31 9 6 0 -- -- --
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

TABLE 4-95
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 1,637.95 -- -- 8.13 28.98 71.92 2,080.81 1.78 274.24 -- 258.27 291.46 28.95 29.51 762.29 -- 3.21
TSS tons 636.74 -- -- 1.23 11.57 2.33 84.56 0.07 179.71 -- 77.87 153.49 9.66 1.01 3.55 -- 0.09
BOD pounds 70,778 -- -- 492 2,298 1,040 24,366 19 16,669 -- 8,520 95,696 1,079 1,017 6,754 -- 45
FC billion count 557,126 -- -- 55 36,966 1,046 70,949 73 46,718 -- 171,439 62,274 19,111 60 -- -- 3,511
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-158
TABLE 4-96
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) PERCENT)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 30% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 38% 0% 5% -- 5% 5% 1% 1% 14% -- 0%
TSS tons 55% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 7% 0% 15% -- 7% 13% 1% 0% 0% -- 0%
BOD pounds 31% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 11% 0% 7% -- 4% 42% 0% 0% 3% -- 0%
FC billion count 57% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 5% -- 18% 6% 2% 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 in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
TABLE 4-97
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS /ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.233 -- -- 0.001 0.004 0.010 0.296 0.000 0.039 -- 0.037 0.041 0.004 0.004 0.108 -- 0.000
TSS tons/acre 0.091 -- -- 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.026 -- 0.011 0.022 0.001 0.000 0.001 -- 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 10.072 -- -- 0.070 0.327 0.148 3.467 0.003 2.372 -- 1.212 13.617 0.154 0.145 0.961 -- 0.006
FC billion counts/acre 79.279 -- -- 0.008 5.260 0.149 10.096 0.010 6.648 -- 24.396 8.862 2.719 0.008 -- -- 0.500
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-159
4.6.8. Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Points KK-9 and KK-10)
This portion of the mainstem is located in the northern portion of the Kinnickinnic River
watershed and flows easterly to the Lake Michigan estuary. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem
assessment point areas KK-9 and KK-10 encompass 3.3 square miles. Within the Kinnickinnic
River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9), the river begins on the west side of St. Lukes
Hospital, immediately downstream of its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. From there, the
river flows easterly through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway, beneath 27
th
Street and then south
of the Forest Home Cemetery and the north of Pulaski High School. East of 20
th
Street and the
Kinnickinnic Sports Center, the river changes direction and flows northerly along 16
th
Street.
The river continues to flow northerly until it reaches Pulaski Park. In the center of the park, the
river changes direction and begins to flow easterly. On the east side of the park, the river reaches
the downstream terminus of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) and
the point where the river flows into the combined sewer service area. Throughout the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9), the river flows within a concrete-
lined channel. Despite being confined to a concrete-lined channel, the width of the riparian area
varies substantially, from less than 25 feet to greater than 75 feet.
The relatively wide riparian width is likely due to the types of land uses the river flows through.
These land uses include recreational and open space land uses associated with Pulaski High
School and the Kinnickinnic Sports Center located northeast of intersection of Oklahoma
Avenue and 20
th
Street (Figure 4-40). The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point
area(KK-9) does not contain any dams or drop structures.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land use within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem
assessment point area (KK-9) is predominantly institutional and governmental (28 percent),
which is largly due to the Forest Home Cemetery, Saint Francis Hospital and Saint Lukes
Hospital. High-density residential (25 percent) (this is defined on the following table) and
transportation (24 percent) also contribute to the total land use. Land adjacent to the river
corridor contributes to recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses, which make up nearly
15 percent of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial land uses, along with commercial
land uses compose the remaining 8 percent. Based on an analysis of land use information used
to develop the water quality data, approximately 27 percent of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem
assessment point area (KK-9) is impervious. TABLE 4-98 presents the land uses within the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area.


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-161
TABLE 4-98
LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA KK-9
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq
mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.0 0.00%
High Density Residential
2
0.3 24.66%
Commercial 0.0 2.32%
Institutional & Governmental 0.3 28.19%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.2 14.98%
Transportation 0.3 24.28%
Manufacturing and Industrial 0.1 5.57%
Total 1.2 100.00%
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.

Figure 4-40
Land Use Map : KK-9
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
o
m
e

A
v
e
Lincoln Ave
Cleveland Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
4
3
r
d

S
t
3
5
t
h

S
t
2
0
t
h

S
t
6
t
h

S
t
1
3
t
h

S
t
C
h
a
s
e

A
v
e
4
3
r
d

S
t
KK-9
0 570 1,140 285
Feet
LEGEND
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach TributaryArea
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Assessment Points
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-163

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) is occupied by one
municipality. The city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 1.2 square mile area, as shown in
TABLE 4-99.
TABLE 4-99
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area
(sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Milwaukee 1.2 100.00%
Total 1.2 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) are TP and FC. The
largest contributors to baseline loads are sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water
quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses in the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). These
sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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
Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, fecal coliform concentrations
were assessed as poor for the annual measure and moderate during the swimming season. See
Figure 4-41, Figure 4-42, and Figure 4-43 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as
a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note:
the black line on Figure 4-36 represents the cumulative number of days, at various
concentrations, throughout the year.
Total Phosphorus was also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TP were characterized as
poor within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). They tended to be
highest during high and low flows. The higher concentrations at flow extremes suggest a
background source of TP that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to inputs of
non-contact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-164
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 of DO are consistently high within the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). The decline in DO concentrations
during the summer months is typical and a function of decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer
water.
Total suspended solids concentrations were also characterized as very good. 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. However, note that the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment
point area (KK-9) contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed 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.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples show chloride values that fall below levels that are
acutely toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations in March consistently exceed the chronic
toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no winter
data. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride
concentrations. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, it
appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir
(sediment) that is gradually released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions.
As flow increases, the concentrations decline due to dilution (Figure 4-44). See Chapter 6,
section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analyses 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 assessment point area. In the table,
the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter wont necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-101 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-
103 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including
loads from assessment point areas KK-1 through KK-9, are also estimated within the
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). TABLE 4-104 presents the
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-105 presents the percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-106 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre
basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ South 27th Street (RI 12)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-41
KK-9 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-42
KK-9 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
South 27
th
Street (RI-12) Reach 807
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-44
KK-9 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Flow Conditions Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L) Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L) Box & Whiskers
South 27
th
Street (RI-12) Reach 807
Chloride
Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-43
KK-9 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-169
TABLE 4-100
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-9
Kinnickinnic
River
Downstream
of Wilson
Park Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,785
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

74
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 654
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

254
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,360
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

87
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 343
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

146
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 11.3
Median (mg/l) 11.4
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.206
Median (mg/l) 0.171
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
24
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.39
Median (mg/l) 1.22
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 14.5
Median (mg/l) 4.8
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0047
Median (mg/l) 0.0019
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-170
TABLE 4-101
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 172.78 -- -- 1.26 8.50 -- 281.59 -- 30.60 -- 32.53 -- 12.00 1.68 222.80 56.04 876.49
TSS tons 72.49 -- -- 0.22 3.93 -- 15.50 -- 20.42 -- 11.08 -- 4.50 0.07 0.45 2.45 25.10
BOD pounds 7,759 -- -- 80 726 -- 3,222 -- 1,951 -- 1,092 -- 462 57 812.54 788.07 12,350.50
FC
billion
counts 96,243 -- -- 9 19,172 -- 13,195 -- 8,588 -- 35,883 -- 12,718 3 -- 63,549 957,778
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-102
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 10% -- -- 0% 1% -- 17% -- 2% -- 2% -- 1% 0% 13% 3% 52%
TSS 46% -- -- 0% 3% -- 10% -- 13% -- 7% -- 3% 0% 0% 2% 16%
BOD 26% -- -- 0% 2% -- 11% -- 7% -- 4% -- 2% 0% 3% 3% 42%
FC 8% -- -- 0% 2% -- 1% -- 1% -- 3% -- 1% 0% -- 5% 79%
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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-171
TABLE 4-103
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.23 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.37 -- 0.04 -- 0.04 -- 0.02 0.00 0.29 0.07 1.14
TSS tons/acre
0.09 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.02 -- 0.03 -- 0.01 -- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
BOD pounds/acre
10.13 -- -- 0.10 0.95 -- 4.21 -- 2.55 -- 1.43 -- 0.60 0.08 1.06 1.03 16.13
FC billion counts/acre
126 -- -- 0 25 -- 17 -- 11 -- 47 -- 17 0 -- 83 1,251
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 2,975.60 6.46 2.63 15.13 64.09 91.35 4,213.03 2.40 466.14 0.08 603.16 337.11 61.17 48.45 1,441.15 56.04 894.57
TSS tons 1,295.98 7.32 3.01 2.40 29.89 3.07 195.68 0.10 333.20 0.02 206.61 200.96 22.97 1.75 5.55 2.45 25.62
BOD pounds 133,627 290 114 931 5,478 1,258 47,280 25 29,726 9 20,249 98,233 2,353 1,667 12,990.78 788.07 12,605.32
FC
billion
counts
1,656,206 49 34 105 144,515 1,912 202,797 139 130,696 4 663,443 116,950 64,820 98 -- 63,549 977,539
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-172
TABLE 4-105
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 26% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 37% 0% 4% 0% 5% 3% 1% 0% 13% 0% 8%
TSS 55% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 14% 0% 9% 9% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
BOD 36% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 13% 0% 8% 0% 6% 27% 1% 0% 4% 0% 3%
FC 41% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 16% 3% 2% 0% -- 2% 24%
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 in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS /ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.261 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.369 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.053 0.030 0.005 0.004 0.126 0.005 0.078
TSS tons/acre 0.114 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.018 0.018 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
BOD pounds/acre 11.703 0.025 0.010 0.082 0.480 0.110 4.141 0.002 2.603 0.001 1.773 8.603 0.206 0.146 1.138 0.069 1.104
FC billion counts/acre 145.051 0.004 0.003 0.009 12.657 0.167 17.761 0.012 11.446 0.000 58.104 10.242 5.677 0.009 -- 5.566 85.613
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-173
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area was evaluated.
The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream
flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the
potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point
area (KK-9) does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key
factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life.
Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of
aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm
aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO
concentrations were both assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat
under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 51
percent reduction in baseline TP loads and a 78 percent reduction in baseline FC loads within the
Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-9). The major reason for the reduction in
baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source
loads will be eliminated. Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is
presented in TABLE 4-107. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter
discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation
criteria that may have been 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.
TABLE 4-108 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-109 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-110 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-111 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-112 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-113 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on
a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 78 percent reduction in FC loading and the 51 percent reduction in TP
loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicates that the
assessments of TP would remain poor. Fecal coliform would remain poor for the annual measure
and would remain moderate during the swimming season. The assessments of TSS would
remain unchanged as very good as would the assessments of minimum and maximum
concentrations of DO. 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 2020 Regional Plan conditions
indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-174
point area (KK-9) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail
on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-175
TABLE 4-107
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-9
Kinnickinnic
River
Downstream of
Wilson Park
Creek
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,028
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

78
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 363
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

297
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,579
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

89
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 184
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

153
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 11.3
Median (mg/l) 11.4
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.195
Median (mg/l) 0.162
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
25
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.29
Median (mg/l) 1.12
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 11.7
Median (mg/l) 3.8
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0040
Median (mg/l) 0.0017
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-176
TABLE 4-108
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 152.88 -- -- 1.31 7.52 -- 226.07 -- 21.23 -- 27.35 -- 10.62 1.90 222.80 27.48 124.87
TSS tons 57.71 -- -- 0.23 3.13 -- 12.37 -- 12.75 -- 8.38 -- 3.58 0.08 0.45 1.20 3.58
BOD pounds 6,592 -- -- 83 617 -- 2,750 -- 1,300 -- 882 -- 392 65 813 386 1,760
FC billion counts 54,255 -- -- 9 10,808 -- 7,470 -- 3,796 -- 19,218 -- 7,169 4 -- 31,156 136,455
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-109
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 19% -- -- 0% 1% -- 27% -- 3% -- 3% -- 1% 0% 27% 3% 15%
TSS 56% -- -- 0% 3% -- 12% -- 12% -- 8% -- 3% 0% 0% 1% 3%
BOD 42% -- -- 1% 4% -- 18% -- 8% -- 6% -- 3% 0% 5% 2% 11%
FC 20% -- -- 0% 4% -- 3% -- 1% -- 7% -- 3% 0% -- 12% 50%
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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-177
TABLE 4-110
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE /YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.20 -- -- 0.00 0.01 -- 0.30 -- 0.03 -- 0.04 -- 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.04 0.16
TSS tons/acre
0.08 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 -- 0.02 -- 0.01 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
9 -- -- 0 1 -- 4 -- 2 -- 1 -- 1 0 1 1 2
FC billion counts/acre
71 -- -- 0 14 -- 10 -- 5 -- 25 -- 9 0 -- 41 178
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 2,676.11 -- -- 13.16 56.96 71.92 3,299.58 1.95 407.30 -- 532.97 291.46 54.64 39.99 1,441.15 27.48 131.40
TSS tons 1,026.97 -- -- 2.11 23.13 2.33 151.22 0.08 259.67 -- 161.75 153.49 18.33 1.45 5.55 1.20 3.76
BOD pounds 115,623 -- -- 813 4,584 1,040 39,191 21 24,818 -- 17,422 95,696 2,028 1,376 12,991 386 1,852
FC billion count 924,173 -- -- 91 76,767 1,046 111,219 80 70,519 -- 363,296 62,274 36,439 81 -- 31,156 143,584
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-178
TABLE 4-112
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 30% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 36% 0% 5% -- 6% 3% 1% 0% 16% 0% 1%
TSS tons 57% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 14% -- 9% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BOD pounds 36% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 12% 0% 8% -- 5% 30% 1% 0% 4% 0% 1%
FC billion count 51% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 6% 0% 4% -- 20% 3% 2% 0% -- 2% 8%
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 in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE /YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.234 -- -- 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.289 0.000 0.036 -- 0.047 0.026 0.005 0.004 0.126 0.002 0.012
TSS tons/acre 0.090 -- -- 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.023 -- 0.014 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 10.126 -- -- 0.071 0.401 0.091 3.432 0.002 2.174 -- 1.526 8.381 0.178 0.120 1.138 0.034 0.162
FC billion counts/acre 80.939 -- -- 0.008 6.723 0.092 9.741 0.007 6.176 -- 31.817 5.454 3.191 0.007 -- 2.729 12.575
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-179
KK-10
The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) is located downstream of the
combined sewer service area which is located between 16
th
and 6
th
Streets which in turn, is
located downstream of mainstem assessment point area KK-9 (Figure 4-45). Within assessment
point area KK-10, the river begins at 6
th
Street and flows southeasterly toward I-94/I-43. Just east
of 6
th
Street, the river flows within a concrete-lined channel, but then enters a natural channel
west of 5
th
Street. Further downstream and east of I-94/I-43, the river changes direction and
flows northeasterly to Chase Avenue, just south of Baran Park. Chase Avenue marks the
downstream terminus of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem within assessment point area KK-10;
further downstream, the river flows into the estuary. The width of the riparian margin is
relatively narrow within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10). This
assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures.
For the most part, the river flows through industrial, manufacturing and transportation land uses.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem
assessment point area (KK-10) is predominantly high-density residential (37 percent) (this is
defined in the following table). Transportation, including highway, arterial streets, and local
roads contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 36 percent of the total land
use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses and institutional and governmental land
uses make up 18 percent of the total land use Manufacturing and industrial, commercial, and
low-density residential land uses compose the remaining 9 percent. Based on an analysis of land
use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 33 percent of the
Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10) is impervious. TABLE 114 presents the land
uses within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10).


Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-181
TABLE 4-114
LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Land Use
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area
Agriculture 0.0 0.00%
Low Density Residential
1
0.0 0.12%
High Density Residential
2
0.8 37.34%
Commercial 0.1 3.42%
Institutional &
Governmental 0.2 8.75%
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
0.2 8.79%
Transportation 0.7 35.54%
Manufacturing and
Industrial 0.1 6.04%
Total 2.1 100.00%
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.

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) assessment point area is
occupied by one municipality. The city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 2.1 square mile area,
as shown in TABLE 4-115.
TABLE 4-115
CIVIL DIVISIONS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Civil Division
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division
City of Milwaukee 2.1 100.00%
Total 2.1 100.00%

LEGEND
Figure 4-45
Land Use Map : KK-10
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Institutional and Governemntal
Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
Manufacturing and Industrial
Surface Water Watersheds
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Water
Civil Divisions
Waterbodies
Cleveland Ave
Oklahoma Ave
Morgan Ave
Howard Ave
6
t
h

S
t
1
3
t
h

S
t
C
h
a
s
e

A
v
e
C
l
e
m
e
n
t

A
v
e
KK-10
0 760 1,520 380
Feet
Assessment Points
Combined Sewer Service Area
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-183
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) are TP and FC.
The largest contributors to baseline loads are grass on hydrologic group C soils and CSOs (TP),
CSOs (FC), and commercial (BOD). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact
pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60 percent of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to
unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads
from the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10). These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors,
including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are
distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of
known sources.
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 detailed water quality modeling analyses, fecal coliform
concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-184

Figure 4-46, Figure 4-47, and Figure 4-48 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a
function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the
black line on Figure 4-40 represents the cumulative number of days, at various concentrations,
throughout the year.
The concentrations of TP were characterized as poor within the Kinnickinnic River assessment
point area (KK-10). Concentrations tended to be highest during high and low flows. The higher
concentrations at flow extremes suggest a background source of phosphorus that is particularly
noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to inputs of non-contact cooling water) as well as nonpoint
sources of phosphorus at 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 concentrations of DO are consistently high within the
Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10). The decline in DO concentrations during the
summer months is typical and a function of decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. The
TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are
primarily attributed to nonpoint sources.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples show chloride values below levels that are acutely toxic
to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations in spring often exceed the chronic toxicity threshold.
However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no winter data. Winter chloride
concentrations would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations. It is difficult to
assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is
not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir that is gradually released and is
particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. At high flow conditions, dilution takes
over, lowering the chloride concentration (Figure 4-49). 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 baseline water quality data, summarized
on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-116. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment
of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of
different evaluation criteria that may have been 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 4-117 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-
119 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including
loads from assessment point areas KK-1 through KK-10, are also estimated within the
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-184
Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10). TABLE 4-120 presents the
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-121 presents the percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load and TABLE 4-122 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre
basis.
Kinnickinnic River @ South 27th Street (RI 13)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
0
-
4
0
0
4
0
0
-
6
0
0
6
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
-
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
-
5
0
0
0
>
5
0
0
0
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
y
s

P
e
r

Y
e
a
r


FIGURE 4-46
KK-10 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-47
KK-10 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
c
f
u
/
1
0
0

m
L
)
Flow Conditions Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL) Box & Whiskers
South 7
th
Street (RI-13) Reach 806
Fecal Coliform
Modeled Flow Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-48
KK-10 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
1
10
100
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Flow Duration Interval (%)
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Flow Conditions Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L) Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L) Box & Whiskers
South 7
th
Street (RI-13) Reach 806
Chloride
Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data
Dry
Conditions
Low
Flows
Mid-range
Flows
High
Flows
Moist
Conditions

FIGURE 4-49
KK-10 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-190
TABLE 4-116
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Baseline
Condition
KK-10
Kinnickinnic
River near
Upstream
Limit of
Estuary
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 5,859
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells
per 100 ml)
a

74
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
842
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard
(<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

229
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,401
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells
per 100 ml)
a

86
Geometric mean (cells per 100
ml)
498
Days of compliance with
geometric mean standard
(<1,000 cells per 100 ml)
a

131
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 11.4
Median (mg/l) 11.5
Percent compliance with
dissolved oxygen standard (>2
mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.196
Median (mg/l) 0.165
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
27
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.36
Median (mg/l) 1.21
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 13.2
Median (mg/l) 4.7
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0048
Median (mg/l) 0.0019
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-191

TABLE 4-117
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 339.48 -- -- 1.57 3.78 -- 473.44 1.28 55.36 -- 88.43 86.13 13.07 2.66 -- 433.20 0.47
TSS tons 142.43 -- -- 0.28 1.75 -- 26.07 0.06 36.94 -- 30.10 50.55 4.90 0.11 0.66 18.95 0.01
BOD pounds 15,245 -- -- 100 323 -- 5,417 14 3,530 -- 2,969 3,694 503 91 2,869.22 6,091.83 6.67
FC
billion
counts 189,095 -- -- 11 8,533 -- 22,184 73 15,536 -- 97,529 29,929 13,854 5 -- 491,238 517
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-118
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 23% -- -- 0% 0% -- 32% 0% 4% -- 6% 6% 1% 0% -- 29% 0%
TSS 46% -- -- 0% 1% -- 8% 0% 12% -- 10% 16% 2% 0% 0% 6% 0%
BOD 37% -- -- 0% 1% -- 13% 0% 9% -- 7% 9% 1% 0% 7% 15% 0%
FC 22% -- -- 0% 1% -- 3% 0% 2% -- 11% 3% 2% 0% -- 57% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at
properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-192
TABLE 4-119
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.25 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.35 0.00 0.04 -- 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.00 -- 0.32 0.00
TSS tons/acre
0.10 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.02 0.00 0.03 -- 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
11.16 -- -- 0.07 0.24 -- 3.97 0.01 2.58 -- 2.17 2.70 0.37 0.07 2.10 4.46 0.00
FC billion counts/acre
138 -- -- 0 6 -- 16 0 11 -- 71 22 10 0 -- 360 0
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 3,315.08 6.46 2.63 16.69 67.87 91.35 4,686.48 3.67 521.50 0.08 691.59 423.24 74.24 51.11 1,441.15 489.24 895.04
TSS tons 1,438.40 7.32 3.01 2.68 31.64 3.07 221.75 0.16 370.14 0.02 236.71 251.51 27.87 1.86 6.20 21.40 25.63
BOD pounds 148,872 290 114 1,031 5,801 1,258 52,697 39 33,256 9 23,218 101,927 2,856 1,758 15,860.00 6,879.91 12,611.98
FC
billion
counts 1,845,301 49 34 116 153,048 1,912 224,981 212 146,232 4 760,972 146,879 78,674 103 -- 554,787 978,056
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-193
TABLE 4-121
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 26% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 37% 0% 4% 0% 5% 3% 1% 0% 11% 4% 7%
TSS 54% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 14% 0% 9% 9% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
BOD 36% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 13% 0% 8% 0% 6% 25% 1% 0% 4% 2% 3%
FC 38% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 16% 3% 2% 0% -- 11% 20%
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 in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.259 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.007 0.367 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.054 0.033 0.006 0.004 0.113 0.038 0.070
TSS tons/acre 0.113 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.019 0.020 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002
BOD pounds/acre 11.645 0.023 0.009 0.081 0.454 0.098 4.122 0.003 2.601 0.001 1.816 7.973 0.223 0.138 1.241 0.538 0.987
FC billion counts/acre 144.341 0.004 0.003 0.009 11.972 0.150 17.598 0.017 11.438 0.000 59.524 11.489 6.154 0.008 -- 43.396 76.504
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-194
Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) was
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was assessed as poor. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow which has the
potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point
area (KK-10) does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key
factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life.
Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of
aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm
aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO
concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat
under baseline conditions.
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 24
percent reduction in baseline TP loads, a 42 percent reduction in baseline FC loads and a 20
percent reduction in baseline BOD loads within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment
point area (KK-10). The major reason for the reduction in baseline FC loads is the projection in
the RWQMPU that 50 percent of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. Modeled
Year 2020 water quality for the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area is presented
in TABLE 4-123. This table also 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 wont necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in
the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that may
have been 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.
TABLE 4-124 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-125 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-126 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-127 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads,
TABLE 4-128 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and
TABLE 4-129 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 42 percent reduction in FC loading, the 24 percent reduction in TP loading
and the 20 percent reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the 2020 Regional Plan
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure, but
improve from poor to moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of TP would also
remain poor. The assessments of both the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would
remain as very good. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged 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 2020 Regional Plan conditions indicate that the assessment
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-195
of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area would remain
unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and
flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-196
TABLE 4-123
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator Statistic
Year 2020
Condition
KK-10
Kinnickinnic
River near
Upstream Limit
of Estuary
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(annual)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 3,091
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

78
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 449
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

292
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)
Mean (cells per 100 ml) 1,634
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

89
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) 253
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)
a

152
Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) 11.4
Median (mg/l) 11.5
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)
a

100
Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) 0.185
Median (mg/l) 0.155
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
28
Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) 1.26
Median (mg/l) 1.11
Total Suspended
Solids
Mean (mg/l) 10.7
Median (mg/l) 3.9
Copper Mean (mg/l) 0.0040
Median (mg/l) 0.0017
a
Variance Standard in Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-197
TABLE 4-124
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 294.85 -- -- 1.47 3.35 -- 366.23 1.02 41.19 -- 74.16 76.21 10.53 2.73 -- 262.51 --
TSS tons 111.30 -- -- 0.26 1.39 -- 20.03 0.05 24.73 -- 22.71 40.24 3.55 0.11 0.66 11.48 0.01
BOD pounds 12,713 -- -- 94 275 -- 4,455 12 2,522 -- 2,390 3,138 389 93 2,869 3,692 7
FC
billion
counts 104,636 -- -- 11 4,810 -- 12,102 41 7,364 -- 52,109 16,872 7,113 6 -- 297,682 517
Units are mass or counts per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
TABLE 4-125
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Loads
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
*

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
*

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
*

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
*

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w
*

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP 26% -- -- 0% 0% -- 32% 0% 4% -- 7% 7% 1% 0% -- 23% --
TSS 47% -- -- 0% 1% -- 8% 0% 10% -- 10% 17% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0%
BOD 39% -- -- 0% 1% -- 14% 0% 8% -- 7% 10% 1% 0% 9% 11% 0%
FC 21% -- -- 0% 1% -- 2% 0% 1% -- 10% 3% 1% 0% -- 59% 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 in the given assessment point area.
* = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located
at properties classified as impervious land.
Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-198
TABLE 4-126
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre
0.22 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.27 0.00 0.03 -- 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00 -- 0.19 --
TSS tons/acre
0.08 -- -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.01 0.00 0.02 -- 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
BOD pounds/acre
9 -- -- 0 0 -- 3 0 2 -- 2 2 0 0 2 3 0
FC billion counts/acre
137 -- -- 0 6 -- 16 -- 10 -- 68 -- 9 0 -- 389 1
Units are mass or counts per acre per year
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 2,970.96 -- -- 14.63 60.30 71.92 3,665.81 2.97 448.49 -- 607.13 367.67 65.17 42.72 1,441.15 289.99 131.40
TSS tons 1,138.27 -- -- 2.37 24.52 2.33 171.26 0.12 284.40 -- 184.47 193.74 21.88 1.56 6.20 12.69 3.78
BOD pounds 128,336 -- -- 907 4,858 1,040 43,645 33 27,340 -- 19,812 98,835 2,417 1,469 15,860 4,078 1,858
FC billion counts 1,028,809 -- -- 102 81,577 1,046 123,321 120 77,884 -- 415,405 79,146 43,552 87 -- 328,838 144,101
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D

Watershed Restoration Plan Kinnickinnic River



4-199
TABLE 4-128
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds 29% -- -- 0% 1% 1% 36% 0% 4% -- 6% 4% 1% 0% 14% 3% 1%
TSS tons 56% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 14% -- 9% 9% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
BOD pounds 37% -- -- 0% 1% 0% 12% 0% 8% -- 6% 28% 1% 0% 5% 1% 1%
FC billion counts 44% -- -- 0% 4% 0% 5% 0% 3% -- 18% 3% 2% 0% -- 14% 6%
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 in 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 KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Loads Units
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
r
o
p
(
B
)

C
r
o
p
(
C
)

F
o
r
e
s
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

/

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

G
r
a
s
s
(
B
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
C
)

G
r
a
s
s
(
D
)

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

P
a
s
t
u
r
e
(
B
)

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

U
l
t
r
a

L
o
w

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
S
O
s

S
S
O
s

TP pounds/acre 0.232 -- -- 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.287 0.000 0.035 -- 0.047 0.029 0.005 0.003 0.113 0.023 0.010
TSS tons/acre 0.089 -- -- 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.022 -- 0.014 0.015 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
BOD pounds/acre 10.039 -- -- 0.071 0.380 0.081 3.414 0.003 2.139 -- 1.550 7.731 0.189 0.115 1.241 0.319 0.145
FC billion counts/acre 80.474 -- -- 0.008 6.381 0.082 9.646 0.009 6.092 -- 32.493 6.191 3.407 0.007 -- 25.722 11.272
Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D