You are on page 1of 500

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1-1
1.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2

Key Elements of the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan ........................... 1-1

1.3

Watershed Restoration Plan Development and Findings................................................. 1-5
1.3.1

Key Focus Areas Identified During the Watershed Restoration Plan Planning
Process ............................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.2

Baseline Year 2000 Conditions ......................................................................... 1-6

1.3.3

Management Strategies to Achieve Goals ......................................................... 1-7

1.3.4

Expected Benefits .............................................................................................. 1-7

1.3.5

Prioritization of Actions .................................................................................... 1-8

1.3.6

Other Pollutants ............................................................................................... 1-13

1.3.7

Implementation and Monitoring ...................................................................... 1-13

1.3.8

Policy Issues .................................................................................................... 1-13

Tables
1-1

Public Health Targets and Foundation Actions ............................................................... 1-9

1-2

Habitat and Aesthetics Targets and Foundation Actions ............................................... 1-11

1-3

Nutrients Targets and Foundation Actions .................................................................... 1-12

Figures
1-1

Water Quality Assessment Point Areas within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ........ 1-2

i

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1

Purpose of the Watershed Restoration Plan ..................................................................... 2-1

2.2

Pathway to the Watershed Restoration Plan .................................................................... 2-1

2.3

2.2.1

The Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update and the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District’s 2020 Facilities Planning Process
(2002-2007) ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2

Forging a New Path ........................................................................................... 2-2

Plan Implementation Considerations ............................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1

Consideration of Total Maximum Daily Load Analyses .................................. 2-3

2.3.2

Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and NR 151..................................... 2-4

2.3.3

Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and the Clean Water Act ................ 2-5

2.3.4

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Nonpoint Pollution Program – Wis.
Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management ...................... 2-6

2.4

Pathway Decision............................................................................................................. 2-6

2.5

Development of the Watershed Restoration Plan .......................................................... 2-10

2.6

2.5.1

Overview ......................................................................................................... 2-10

2.5.2

Detailed Tasks ................................................................................................. 2-12

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2-13

Tables
2-1

Impact of NR 151 on Modeled Total Suspended Solids for the Kinnickinnic River ...... 2-8

Figures
2-1

Annual Bacteria Load Percentages by Source Category to the Kinnickinnic River
Watershed – Year 2000 Conditions ................................................................................. 2-2

2-2

What Pathways Exist for Progress? ................................................................................. 2-3

2-3

Framework for the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan .............................. 2-9

Appendices
2A

Integrated Watershed Implementation Planning Meeting Agenda

2B

Water Quality Data – Existing 2000 and Revised 2020 Baseline with and without NR 151

ii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 3: BUILD PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................ 3-1
3.1

Stakeholders for the Watershed Restoration Plan ............................................................ 3-1

3.2

Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. .............................................................. 3-2

3.3

3.4

3.2.1

Executive Steering Council ............................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2

Science Committee, Modeling, and Habitat Subcommittees ............................ 3-4

3.2.3

Watershed Action Teams .................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.4

Policy Committee .............................................................................................. 3-6

Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Linked Goals (concurrent with Regional
Water Quality Management Plan Update Pollutant Reduction Goals) ............................ 3-7
3.3.1

Watershed Action Team Visioning Session .................................................... 3-10

3.3.2

Watershed Restoration Plan Focus Areas ....................................................... 3-12

3.3.3

Habitat Considerations .................................................................................... 3-13

Education and Outreach ................................................................................................. 3-13
3.4.1

Internet............................................................................................................. 3-13

3.4.2

Watershed Booklets ......................................................................................... 3-14

3.4.3

Annual Conference .......................................................................................... 3-14

3.4.4

Other Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Education and Outreach
Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 3-15

Figures
3-1 Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Members ................................................. 3-2

Appendices
3A

Invited Participants - KK Watershed Action Team

3B

Participants - KK Watershed Action Team

iii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERIZE THE WATERSHED ....................................................... 4-1
4.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2

Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ................... 4-1

4.3

Habitat Assessment within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ....................................... 4-8

4.4

Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ......... 4-22

4.5

Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds) ..................................................................... 4-25
4.5.1

Lyons Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-1) .................................................. 4-25

4.5.2

South 43rd Street Ditch (Assessment Point KK-2) .......................................... 4-41

4.5.3

Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Point KK-3) ............................... 4-56

4.5.4

Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-4) ................................................ 4-73

4.5.5

Holmes Avenue Creek (Assessment Point KK-5) .......................................... 4-88

4.5.6

Villa Mann Creek (Assessment Point KK-6) ................................................ 4-103

4.5.7

Cherokee Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-7) ........................................... 4-118

4.5.8

Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-8) .............................................. 4-133

4.5.9

Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Points KK-9 and KK-10) ........ 4-150

Tables
4-1

Approximate Percentage of Connected Impervious Surfaces Created by Urban
Development .................................................................................................................... 4-6

4-2

Physical and Biological Conditions ............................................................................... 4-11

4-3

Aggregated Bioassessment Results................................................................................ 4-17

4-4

Fish Species Composition .............................................................................................. 4-21

4-5

Total Baseline Assessment Point Areas Loads .............................................................. 4-24

Lyons Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-1)
4-6

Land Use in the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) ............................. 4-26

4-7

Civil Divisions in the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) .................... 4-29

4-8

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-1) ............................................................................................................................ 4-34

4-9

Baseline Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-35

4-10

Baseline Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Percent) ... 4-35

4-11

Baseline Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Units / Acre /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-36

iv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-12

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality at the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-1) ............................................................................................................................ 4-38

4-13

Year 2020 Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-39

4-14

Year 2020 Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Percent) 4-39

4-15

Year 2020 Loads for the Lyons Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-1) (Units / Acre /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-40

South 43rd Street Ditch (Assessment Point KK-2)
4-16

Land Use in the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) .................... 4-42

4-17

Civil Divisions in the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) ........... 4-44

4-18

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area
(KK-2) ............................................................................................................................ 4-49

4-19

Baseline Loads for the 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-50

4-20

Baseline Loads for the 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) (Percent) .... 4-50

4-21

Baseline Loads for the 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) (Units / Acre /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-51

4-22

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point
Area (KK-2) ................................................................................................................... 4-53

4-23

Year 2020 Loads for the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-54

4-24

Year 2020 Loads for the South 43rd Street Ditch Assessment Point Area (KK-2)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-54

4-25

Year 2020 Loads for the South 43rd Street Assessment Point Area (KK-2) (Units / Acre /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-55

Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Point KK-3)
4-26

Land Use in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3) .......... 4-57

4-27

Civil Divisions in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3).. 4-59

4-28

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-3) ................................................................................................................... 4-64

4-29

Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Units / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-65

4-30

Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-65

4-31

Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Units / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-66

v

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-32

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-3) (Units / Year)..................................................................................................... 4-66

4-33

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-3) (Percent) ............................................................................................................ 4-67

4-34

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-3) (Units / Acre / Year) .......................................................................................... 4-67

4-35

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (KK-3).......................................................................................................... 4-69

4-36

Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Units / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-70

4-37

Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-70

4-38

Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-3)
(Units / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-71

4-39

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-3) (Units / Year) ............................................................................................ 4-71

4-40

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-3) (Percent) ................................................................................................... 4-72

4-41

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-3) (Units / Acre / Year) ................................................................................. 4-72

Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-4)
4-42

Land Use in the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) ............................ 4-74

4-43

Civil Divisions in the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) ................... 4-76

4-44

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-4) ............................................................................................................................ 4-81

4-45

Baseline Load for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-82

4-46

Baseline Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) (Percent) . 4-82

4-47

Baseline Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) (Units / Acre /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-83

4-48

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-4) ............................................................................................................................ 4-85

4-49

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-86

4-50

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-86

vi

Watershed Restoration Plan

4-51

Kinnickinnic River

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-4) (Units / Acre
/ Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-87

Holmes Avenue Creek (Assessment Point KK-5)
4-52

Land Use in the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) ...................... 4-89

4-53

Civil Divisions in the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) ............. 4-91

4-54

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-5) ............................................................................................................................ 4-96

4-55

Baseline Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-97

4-56

Baseline Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-97

4-57

Baseline Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................... 4-98

4-58

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-5) .......................................................................................................................... 4-100

4-59

Year 2020 Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-101

4-60

Year 2020 Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-101

4-61

Year 2020 Loads for the Holmes Avenue Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-5) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-102

Villa Mann Creek (Assessment Point KK-6)
4-62

Land Use in the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) ........................... 4-104

4-63

Civil Divisions in the Villa Mann Assessment Point Area (KK-6) ............................. 4-106

4-64

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK6) .................................................................................................................................. 4-111

4-65

Baseline Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-112

4-66

Baseline Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) (Percent) . 4-112

4-67

Baseline Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) (Units / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-113

4-68

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-6) .......................................................................................................................... 4-115

4-69

Year 2020 Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-116

4-70

Year 2020 Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-116

vii

Watershed Restoration Plan

4-71

Kinnickinnic River

Year 2020 Loads for the Villa Mann Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-6) (Units / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-117

Cherokee Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-7)
4-72

Land Use in the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) ...................... 4-119

4-73

Civil Divisions in the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) ............. 4-121

4-74

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-7) .......................................................................................................................... 4-126

4-75

Baseline Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-127

4-76

Baseline Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-127

4-77

Baseline Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-128

4-78

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-7) .......................................................................................................................... 4-130

4-79

Year 2020 Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-131

4-80

Year 2020 Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-131

4-81

Year 2020 Loads for the Cherokee Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-7) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-132

Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-8)
4-82

Land Use in the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) .......................... 4-134

4-83

Civil Divisions in the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) ................. 4-136

4-84

Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK8) .................................................................................................................................. 4-141

4-85

Baseline Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-142

4-86

Baseline Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) (Percent) 4-142

4-87

Baseline Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) (Units / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-143

4-88

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Units / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-143

4-89

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-144

4-90

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Units / Acre / Year) .................................................................................................... 4-144

viii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-91

Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area
(KK-8) .......................................................................................................................... 4-146

4-92

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-147

4-93

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-147

4-94

Year 2020 Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8) (Units / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-148

4-95

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Units / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-148

4-96

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
Percent) ........................................................................................................................ 4-149

4-97

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Wilson Park Creek Assessment Point Area (KK-8)
(Units /Acre / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-149

Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Points KK-9 and KK-10)
4-98

Land Use in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area KK-9 ........... 4-151

4-99

Civil Divisions in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-9) .......................................................................................................................... 4-153

4-100 Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK9) .................................................................................................................................. 4-159
4-101 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK-9) (Units /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-160
4-102 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK-9)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-160
4-103 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK-9) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-161
4-104 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK9) (Units / Year) ........................................................................................................... 4-161
4-105 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK9) (Percent)................................................................................................................... 4-162
4-106 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point (KK9) (Units /Acre / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-162
4-107 Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area
(KK-9) .......................................................................................................................... 4-164
4-108 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9) (Units /
Acre) ............................................................................................................................ 4-165
4-109 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-165

ix

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-110 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9) (Units / Acre
/Year) ........................................................................................................................... 4-166
4-111 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9)
(Units / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-166
4-112 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-167
4-113 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK-9)
(Units / Acre /Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-167
4-114 Land Use in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10) ...... 4-169
4-115 Civil Divisions in the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-10) ........................................................................................................................ 4-169
4-116 Modeled Baseline Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Assessment Point Area (KK10) ................................................................................................................................ 4-178
4-117 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Units / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-179
4-118 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-179
4-119 Baseline Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Units / Acre / Year) .................................................................................................... 4-180
4-120 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-10) (Units / Year)................................................................................................. 4-180
4-121 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-10) (Percent) ........................................................................................................ 4-181
4-122 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(KK-10) (Units / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................... 4-181
4-123 Modeled Year 2020 Water Quality for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (KK-10)...................................................................................................... 4-183
4-124 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Units / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-184
4-125 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-184
4-126 Year 2020 Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (KK-10)
(Units / Acre / Year) .................................................................................................... 4-185
4-127 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-10) (Units / Year) ........................................................................................ 4-185
4-128 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-10) (Percent) ............................................................................................... 4-186

x

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-129 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (KK-10) (Units / Acre / Year) ............................................................................. 4-186
Figures
4-1

Habitat Assessment Point Areas within the Kinnickinnic Watershed ............................. 4-3

4-2

Hydrograph Comparison – Urban and Rural Streams ..................................................... 4-7

4-3

Infiltration and Streambank Protection .......................................................................... 4-13

4-4

Relationship Between Biota and Urbanization .............................................................. 4-15

4-5

Interactions of Land Use, Stream Characteristics and Habitat ...................................... 4-16

4-6

Concrete Removal / Floodplain Restoration Example................................................... 4-19

4-7

KK Watershed Assessment Point Area.......................................................................... 4-27

4-8

Land Use Map: KK-1..................................................................................................... 4-28

4-9

KK-1 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................................. 4-31

4-10

KK-1 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-32

4-11

KK-1 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-33

4-12

Land Use Map: KK-2..................................................................................................... 4-43

4-13

KK-2 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................................. 4-46

4-14

KK-2 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-47

4-15

KK-2 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-48

4-16

Land Use Map: KK-3..................................................................................................... 4-58

4-17

KK-3 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................................. 4-61

4-18

KK-3 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-62

4-19

KK-3 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-63

4-20

Land Use Map: KK-4..................................................................................................... 4-75

4-21

KK-4 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................................. 4-78

4-22

KK-4 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-79

4-23

KK-4 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-80

4-24

Land Use Map: KK-5..................................................................................................... 4-90

4-25

KK-5 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................................. 4-93

4-26

KK-5 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-94

4-27

KK-5 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-95

4-28

Land Use Map: KK-6................................................................................................... 4-105

4-29

KK-6 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................ 4-108

xi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-30

KK-6 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................... 4-109

4-31

KK-6 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ...................................................... 4-110

4-32

Land Use Map: KK-7................................................................................................... 4-120

4-33

KK-7 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................ 4-123

4-34

KK-7 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................... 4-124

4-35

KK-7 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ...................................................... 4-125

4-36

Land Use Map: KK-8................................................................................................... 4-135

4-37

KK-8 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................ 4-138

4-38

KK-8 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................... 4-139

4-39

KK-8 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ...................................................... 4-140

4-40

Land Use Map: KK-9................................................................................................... 4-152

4-41

KK-9 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................ 4-155

4-42

KK-9 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................... 4-156

4-43

KK-9 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ...................................................... 4-157

4-44

KK-9 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations ................................................................ 4-158

4-45

Land Use Map: KK-10................................................................................................. 4-170

4-46

KK-10 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations .............................................................. 4-174

4-47

KK-10 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ......................................................... 4-175

4-48

KK-10 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations .................................................... 4-176

4-49

KK-10 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations .............................................................. 4-177

Appendices
4A

Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee
River Watersheds: 2000-2009

4B

Water Quality Model Refinement Memo

4C

Fact Sheets

4D

Ranked Loads for the Kinnickinnic River Watershed

xii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 5: IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS AND DEVELOP MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE GOALS................................................................................... 5-1
5.1

Goals Identified in the Watershed Planning Effort .......................................................... 5-1

5.2

Management Strategies to Achieve Goals ....................................................................... 5-4

5.3

Existing Regulatory Management Strategies to Achieve Goals ...................................... 5-5
5.3.1

Details on the Existing Regulatory Management Strategies to Achieve Goals 5-8

5.3.2

Existing Point Source Control Regulations ....................................................... 5-8

5.3.3

Existing Nonpoint Source Regulatory Programs .............................................. 5-9

5.4

Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation ............................ 5-14

5.5

Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update but not yet Implemented ...................................................... 5-24

5.6

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5-28

Tables
5-1

Summary of Existing Regulatory Management Strategies (FPOPS) to Achieve Goals .... 5-6

5-2 Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation ............................... 5-15
5-3 Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update but not yet Implemented ......................................................... 5-25
Appendices
5A

A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Widespread Aquatic Toxicity and Water Quality Impacts on
Local, Regional, and National Scales

5B

SWWT Membership

5C

Local Governmental Management Agency Designations and Selected Responsibilities and
Prioritization for the Point Source Pollution Abatement Element of the Recommended
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds

xiii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 6: ESTIMATE THE LOAD REDUCTIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS
EXPECTED FROM MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................... 6-1
6.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2

Expected Load Reductions from the Regional Water Quality Management Plan
Update .............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1

Committed Programs ......................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.2

Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation ............. 6-10

6.2.3

Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional
Water Quality Management Plan Update, but Not Yet Implemented ............. 6-16

6.3

Prioritization of Management Measures ........................................................................ 6-18

6.4

Water Quality Improvements Estimated with the Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update .................................................................................................................... 6-18

6.5

Allocations ..................................................................................................................... 6-21

Tables
6-1

Projected Effectiveness of Actions Planned Prior to the Initiation of the Watershed
Restoration Plan .................................................................................................................. 6-3

6-2 Effectiveness of Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update Recommended
Actions ................................................................................................................................ 6-6
6-3 Scoring of Water Quality Conditions in the Kinnickinnic River...................................... 6-20
Figures
6-1 Projected Annual Loads by Parameter for the Major Components of the Regional Water
Quality Management Plan Update ...................................................................................... 6-4
6-2 Percent Reduction in Annual Loads by Parameter for the Major Components of the
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, Relative to the Baseline .................... 6-5

xiv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 7: ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND IDENTIFICATION
OFPRIORITY ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1

Additional Management Strategies .................................................................................. 7-1

7.2

7.1.1

Committed Programs ........................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.2

Additional Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation ....... 7-3

7.1.3

Additional Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation but
Not Yet Implemented ........................................................................................ 7-5

Identification of Priority Actions ..................................................................................... 7-5

7.3

7.2.1

Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria (Table 7-1) .................... 7-11

7.2.2

Priority Actions to Address Land-based Habitat (Table 7-2) ......................... 7-17

7.2.3

Priority Actions to Address In-stream-based Habitat (Table 7-3) .................. 7-21

7.2.4

Priority Actions to Address Nutrients/Phosphorus (Table 7-4) ...................... 7-24

7.2.5

Foundation Actions (Table 7-5) ...................................................................... 7-26

Comments Received on Priority Actions Tables ........................................................... 7-28

Tables
7-1

Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria ......................................................... 7-15

7-2 Priority Actions to Address Land-based Measures ........................................................... 7-18
7-3 Priority Actions to Address In-stream-based Measures.................................................... 7-22
7-4 Priority Actions to Address Nutrients/Phosphorus ........................................................... 7-25
7-5 Foundation Actions ........................................................................................................... 7-27
Figures
7-1 Priority Actions Development and Presentation ................................................................. 7-6
7-2 Habitat Assessment Point Areas within the Kinnickinnic River ...................................... 7-13
Appendices
7A

Planning for Riparian and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat

xv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR PROGRESS - KINNICKINNIC
RIVER WATERSHED.............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Actions ............................................................................................ 8-3

8.3

8.2.1

Completed or Committed Actions .................................................................... 8-3

8.2.2

Watershed Restoration Plan Action Plan for Actions Underway
or Initiated ....................................................................................................... 8-20

8.2.3

New Actions - How to Begin the Process (Implementation Measures) ......... 8-21

8.2.4

Implementation Schedule and Process ............................................................ 8-23

Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 8-23
8.3.1

Local Governments ......................................................................................... 8-23

8.3.2

State Governments .......................................................................................... 8-25

8.3.3

Federal Government........................................................................................ 8-25

8.3.4

Detailed Data on Federal Funding Source ...................................................... 8-26

8.3.5

Private ............................................................................................................. 8-27

8.3.6

Funding Summary........................................................................................... 8-27

8.4

Watershed Policy Issues ................................................................................................ 8-27

8.5

Post-Implementation Monitoring ................................................................................... 8-28

8.6

8.5.1

Use of Adaptive Management ........................................................................ 8-28

8.5.2

Measuring Success .......................................................................................... 8-28

8.5.3

Data Gaps ........................................................................................................ 8-29

8.5.4

Implementation Monitoring ............................................................................ 8-30

8.5.5

Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................ 8-30

Progress Evaluation and Refinement ............................................................................. 8-30

Tables
8-1

Recently Completed Actions .............................................................................................. 8-3

8-2 Underway (Action is Funded and Underway) .................................................................... 8-4
8-3 Initialed Actions ................................................................................................................ 8-10
8-4 Future Actions Recommended in the Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Kinnickinnic River Watershed .......................................................................................... 8-12
8-5 Action Plan Steps for Actions Underway (Table 8-2) or Initiated (Table 8-3) ................ 8-20
8-6 Action Plan Steps for New Actions (Tables 8-3 and 8-4) ................................................ 8-21

xvi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

8-7 Funding Program Name: Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants (319 Program) ........ 8-26
Figures
8-1 WRP Action Plan for new Actions/Projects ..................................................................... 8-24
Appendices
8A Appendix U: Potential Funding Programs to Implement Plan Recommendations. A
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds
(SEWRPC, 2007)
8B
8C

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-Based Permitting Primer
Sweetwater Trust Water Quality Trading Subcommittee Policy Recommendations (3-2-10
Draft)

xvii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Chapter 1: Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan
Executive Summary
1.1
Introduction
The primary purpose of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is to identify specific actions
that can be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to improve water quality within the
Kinnickinnic River and its tributaries and present general recommendations for activity beyond
2015. These actions have been identified based upon a consideration of many factors, including
overall effectiveness, scientific underpinning, regulatory considerations, and stakeholder goals.
This WRP describes the characteristics of the Kinnickinnic River and its watershed, focusing on
those topics that are directly related to implementation (Figure 1-1). Information provided
includes existing (Baseline Year 2000) and Year 2020 land uses, Baseline Year 2000 and Year
2020 water quality conditions, and the most significant sources of pollution. Water quality goals
selected by the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT), based upon scientific,
regulatory, and stakeholder considerations, are also presented and explained, as are the load
reductions that will be needed to meet those goals. The reductions are based upon projected
loads for the Year 2020 and as such account for future growth.
This WRP is the culmination of historical and recent activity to protect and restore water quality
within the greater Milwaukee region. Most significantly, it builds upon the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update (RWQMPU) and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) 2020
Facilities Plan and incorporates the input from members of the SWWT and its associated
Kinnickinnic River Watershed Action Team (WAT) and Science Committee.
1.2
Key Elements of the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan
This WRP follows the Clean Water Act guidelines for developing effective watershed plans. As
such, this WRP includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s (USEPA) nine elements
required to be addressed in watershed plans, described in the USEPA‟s Handbook for
Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters.1 The USEPA‟s nine key
elements are discussed below along with a reference to and a description of this WRP‟s chapters
and appendices that most directly correspond to each key element.
1) Identification of causes and sources to be controlled
Chapter 4: Characterize the Watershed presents a detailed accounting of significant point
and nonpoint sources (broken down by land use) within the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
The chapter‟s maps, descriptions, and tables provide data on the Kinnickinnic River
watershed‟s setting and pollutant loading as well as impacts to water quality and water
quality standards.

1

USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/pdf/ch02.pdf, EPA 841-B-08-002 (March 2008)

1-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

1-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2) Estimation of load reductions
This key element is addressed in Chapter 6: Estimate the Load Reductions and Other
Benefits Expected from Management Measures. Chapter 6 estimates the load reductions of
the major components of the RWQMPU. The chapter also examines the effectiveness of
planned management actions that are generally linked to specific land use classifications
utilized in key element 1 described above. Chapter 6 also describes the management
measures that will be needed to achieve load reductions and improve water quality in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed. Chapter 4: Characterize the Watershed provides detailed
estimates of future loads for the specific land use classifications within the watershed.
3) Description of nonpoint source pollution management measures
Chapter 5: Identify Solutions and Develop Management Strategies to Achieve Goals
addresses this element. Chapter 5 presents management strategies to address both point and
nonpoint sources. These strategies are grouped into three categories: existing regulatory
strategies, management strategies currently being implemented, and management strategies
recommended for implementation in the RWQMPU. In addition to bacteria and nutrients,
Chapter 5 also presents management actions to improve habitat within the Kinnickinnic
River watershed. Appendix 5A presents a discussion of road salt and includes management
measures. Chapter 7: Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority
Actions identifies additional actions that were not included in the RWQMPU and prioritizes
actions and identifies land uses and assessment point areas that should be targeted to meet
the goals of this WRP. Note the Kinnickinnic River watershed assessment point areas are
depicted on Figure 1-1. Appendices 4A, 4C and 4D of Chapter 4 present detailed data to
support the prioritized actions discussed in Chapter 7. Appendix 4A presents SEWRPC‟s
Memorandum Report 194, which includes an assessment of habitat conditions in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed, Appendix 4C includes detailed factsheets for each
assessment point (see element 5 below for description of the factsheets), and Appendix 4D
presents specific data for each assessment point and ranks the assessment point areas by
pollutant load. Appendix 7A includes a discussion of planning considerations for improved
habitat and biodiversity.
4) Estimates of required technical and financial assistance
This element is addressed in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy and Appendices 8A-C.
Chapter 8 discusses funding sources and programs, critical participants, and data gaps. The
chapter emphasizes the importance of addressing the data gaps to implement specific
restoration activities. The chapter also addresses outstanding policy issues that need to be
resolved prior to implementation. Appendices 5B and 5C present SWWT participants and
selected responsibilities for elements of the RWQMPU.
5) Description of information/education program
This element is addressed in Chapter 3: Building Partnerships. Chapter 3 and Appendices
3A and 3B profile the SWWT and the WAT. The SWWT is ideally suited for outreach as it
comprises a diverse suite of members and was formed to improve water quality within the
greater Milwaukee watersheds (GMW). Appendix 4C contains factsheets, including maps,
tables, and descriptions of the Baseline Year 2000 conditions of each assessment point area
within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The factsheets were developed to enhance the
1-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

public‟s understanding of and connection to the Kinnickinnic River watershed and will
assist with implementation.
6) Implementation schedule
Chapter 7: Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority Actions
addresses the schedule element. To enhance stakeholder understanding and the potential for
improved water quality and habitat, this WRP distills future actions into priority action
tables for each focus area. The chapter also presents a foundation action table that lists the
predecessor actions that should be implemented to realize the full potential of subsequent
actions. Chapter 7‟s tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five
years to continue improving water quality within the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy also directly speaks to the schedule element. Chapter 8
presents an overview of this WRP‟s implementation process and includes timeframes for
actions.
7) Description of interim, measureable milestones
This element is primarily concerned with measuring implementation. Measures of
effectiveness and benefits to water quality are primarily addressed in element 8 below. This
„milestone‟ element is addressed primarily in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy. Chapter
8 contains discussion of action plan steps and implementation measures that are required for
actions, including actions that have been initiated and those that are planned. Chapter 7:
Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority Actions also addresses this
element. Chapter 7 presents a discussion of the watershed planning process and interim
milestones, referred to as „targets‟ in this WRP.
8) Description of criteria to determine whether load reductions are achieved
The criteria element is discussed in multiple chapters. Chapter 4: Characterize the
Watershed utilizes projections of population and land use as well as management strategies
to estimate future loads. Based on future loads, Chapter 6: Estimate the Load Reductions
and Other Benefits from Management Measures estimates future water quality throughout
the Kinnickinnic River watershed. In terms of habitat improvements, Chapter 3: Building
Partnerships presents a comprehensive discussion of the stakeholders‟ criteria for
improvements to habitat within the watershed. Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy
incorporates discussions of criteria within the context of post implementation monitoring
including adaptive management, success measurement, implementation and effectiveness
monitoring as well as progress evaluation and recalibration
9) Monitoring component to evaluate effectiveness of implementation
The monitoring element is addressed in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy. In addition to
summarizing the status of all of the various water quality and habitat-based actions that have
been recently completed, are underway, initiated or are planned or recommended, Chapter 8
of this WRP also includes discussions of post-implementation monitoring and progress
evaluation and recalibration.
In summary, this WRP uses the watershed planning process found in the federal program
guidance for Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the specific recommended actions are
based upon those recommended in the RWQMPU. This WRP is intended to be a flexible

1-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

document and as it is implemented, new information/data, technologies, and water quality
measures may form the basis for future revisions.
1.3

Watershed Restoration Plan Development and Findings

1.3.1 Key Focus Areas Identified During the Watershed Restoration Plan Planning
Process
Through the stakeholder input of the SWWT, three major focus areas emerged for this WRP:
bacteria/public health, habitat, and nutrients/phosphorous. These focus areas reflect the linkage
between water quality parameters and water usage in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
a. Bacteria/Public Health
Fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator of pathogens, or microscopic organisms that can make
people sick. The WAT and the Science Committee agreed that public health should be a top
priority of this WRP. High levels of fecal coliform are more of a concern during warm
weather months because that is when people contact the water in the stream the most. One of
the biggest concerns in the Kinnickinnic River watershed is the unknown sources of fecal
coliform.
b. Habitat/Aesthetics
The WAT and Science Committee stressed that habitat issues include physical features as
well as water quality components. Physical features, such as concrete-lined channels and
restoration of watersheds with buffers are important, but the consensus was that this WRP
should consider a wide range of habitat-based parameters. This WRP acknowledges that
aesthetic improvement does not always relate directly to water quality or habitat
improvement, but in many cases they are linked. The major habitat considerations are
summarized below:
Manmade channels/concrete channels - The WAT and Science Committee suggested
that concrete linings be removed and stream channels be naturalized. Other suggestions
include removing streams from enclosed conduit (stream daylighting), erosion control,
aesthetics and re-introduction of stream meanders. While daylighting streams and
introducing meanders would immediately improve habitat along the stream, potential
impacts to public safety and flooding need to be considered.
In-stream conditions - The WAT and Science Committee made suggestions regarding
improvements to in-stream conditions. Note that at the request of the SWWT Science
Committee, SEWRPC staff assessed habitat conditions and provided recommendations to
address habitat issues of concern from the perspective of both the land-based and instream-based conditions, and were distinguished as such. For a complete summary of
biological and habitat conditions from year 2000 to 2009 as well as the recommended
prioritization strategy and priority actions see Appendix 4A (SEWRPC MR-194).
Examples of the habitat-based considerations include the following:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Reduce litter via programs (i.e., source control)
Introduce environmentally-friendly sheet piling and bulkheads
Reduce algae blooms
1-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Remove sediment island south of Lincoln Avenue (if not natural)
Limit motor boat use upstream of Becher Street
Increase diversity and complexity to the system
Riparian areas – The lands adjacent to the Kinnickinnic River stream banks protect and
buffer the stream from pollutants. To maximize their protective benefits, the WAT
suggested that riparian areas be kept vegetated and native vegetation should be managed
to enhance biological diversity. Riparian areas should be expanded to a minimum of 120
feet and structures should be removed from riparian areas that are located within the
floodplain. Other WAT suggestions for improving riparian areas along the Kinnickinnic
River include the following:
Construct, treat and restore wetlands
Improve public access to the river; mandate public access with any new
development (indirect improvement through increased recreational use and
awareness of the river)
Implement mandates to address imperviousness with new development and
redevelopment
Remove coal pile at the port or provide a buffer between the pile and the river (if
possible)
Create more trails along river
Implement geese management and gull management, if applicable
In-stream and riparian areas:
Restore native species and remove invasive species
Use less road salt
c. Nutrients/Phosphorus
In-stream phosphorus concentrations vary throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
While there do not appear to be many problems with algal growth within the watershed,
phosphorus has been identified as an issue along the nearshore area of Lake Michigan.
1.3.2 Baseline Year 2000 Conditions
The characterization of the Baseline Year 2000 conditions within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed was a crucial step in this WRP‟s planning process. A large amount of data was
compiled for each of the 10 assessment point areas included in the watershed (see Chapter 4). A
few important planning considerations emerged from the analysis of the baseline data:
The watershed contains highly developed urban areas, which will be a critical
consideration during implementation.
Analysis of the baseline loading data revealed the importance of identifying unknown
sources of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
The baseline characterization also highlighted the predominant role of nonpoint sources
with respect to nutrient loading. However, the analysis also revealed the need to consider

1-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

non-contact cooling water and the role of phosphorus compounds in drinking water when
identifying priority actions to curb nutrient loading.
Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed. This
WRP‟s identification of critical habitat impairments helps prioritize actions to improve
habitat within the watershed.
1.3.3 Management Strategies to Achieve Goals
This WRP sought to identify management strategies that could be developed to reduce the loads
in a cost effective manner to achieve the goals identified for the three focus areas. The approach
to reduce pollutant loads in the Kinnickinnic River watershed is predicated on the assumption
that the existing regulations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be implemented (see
Table 5-1 in Chapter 5 for an accounting of existing regulations; examples include Point Source
Control, Combined Sewer Overflow/Separate Sewer Overflow (CSO/SSO) Reduction Program,
and Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management (non-Ag only). In other
words, the analysis assumes the recommended management strategies used to meet these
regulations, identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan and SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU, are in place.
These regulatory management strategies would then be the foundation on which new
management strategies are added to achieve the desired goals.
This WRP partitions these management strategies, comprised of facilities, policies, operational
improvements, and programs into three categories:
Existing regulatory management strategies (See Chapter 5, Table 5-1)
Other management strategies in various stages of implementation (See Chapter 5, Table
5-2)
Management strategies recommended for implementation by the RWQMPU, but not yet
implemented (See Chapter 5, Table 5-3)
The existing regulatory management strategies identified in Table 5-1 as well as the management
strategies in various stages of implementation generally address water quality. A number of
strategies to improve habitat and further improve water quality are either in the process of being
implemented (Table 5-2) or are yet to be implemented (Table 5-3).
1.3.4 Expected Benefits
Chapter 6 addresses the expected load reductions and improvements to habitat as well as
estimates future impacts to water quality. Analysis of loading data estimates are summarized in
the following bullets. These bullets present cumulative load reductions from the major
components of the RWQMPU:
Loads of total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) increase
from Baseline Year 2000 to Planned 2020 Future with Planned Growth conditions
whereas total phosphorus (TP) loads stay about the same and fecal coliform loads
slightly decrease.
Implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management,
(non-Agriculture [Ag] only), as called for under the RWQMPU, results in an 11%
decrease in TP loads, a 24% decrease in TSS loads, a 12% decrease in BOD loads, and a

1-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

13% decrease in fecal coliform loads, relative to planned 2020 future with planned
growth conditions.
Implementation of the Point Source Plan, recommended in the RWQMPU, results in
additional load reductions of 7% for TP, 1% for TSS, 3% for BOD, and 21% for fecal
coliform, relative to planned 2020 future with NR 151(non-Ag only) conditions.
Implementation of the remaining measures in the recommended RWQMPU results in
additional load reductions of 4% for TP and 29% for fecal coliform, relative to the
planned 2020 future with point source plan (5-Year LOP). No additional load reductions
are predicted for TSS or BOD.
The expected load reductions for the Kinnickinnic River watershed were estimated from the
modeling that was completed in support of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and this WRP. In some
ways, these load reductions represent an upper estimate of the load reductions that could be
achieved in the watershed because they are based on full implementation of a variety of
management measures from the RWQMPU that were then incorporated into this WRP as
actions. However, several management measures included in this WRP were not included in the
model runs (e.g. the statewide ban on phosphorus in fertilizers). It is therefore possible that load
reductions greater than those modeled for the RWQMPU could eventually be realized.
Despite significant projected load reductions, water quality modeling presented in Chapter 6
indicates that modeled year 2020 water quality assessments or scores generally show minor
improvements or no change, although in some instances, water quality exhibits minor
deterioration. Reduced loading does not necessarily directly translate to an improved water
quality score because, in some cases, the baseline water quality is considerably degraded. This
occurs because the scores are based on the percentage of time that compliance with standards is
met. Reduced loading will improve water quality, but if compliance with water quality standard
is still only met 70% of the time, the water quality will still be scored as poor.
1.3.5 Prioritization of Actions
The three focus areas determined by the SWWT‟s Science Committee included bacteria/public
health, habitat and aesthetics, and nutrients/phosphorus. The technical team analyzed the
potential benefits and developed a list of high priority actions specifically targeted toward the
three focus areas. The recommended high priority actions are summarized in the following
section, which includes excerpts from Table 7-5 Foundation Actions.
a. Public Health
The SWWT committees identified protection of human health as the most important water
quality goal of this WRP. Reducing bacterial loads is a critical element because many locations
in the Kinnickinnic River watershed frequently do not meet existing bacterial water quality
criteria, which means there is a greater risk of getting sick when contacting the water. In
addition to swift and comprehensive action to address significant sources of bacterial loading,
this WRP endorses the enhancement of safe recreation within the Kinnickinnic River. Table 1-1
presents the Kinnickinnic River WRP‟s foundation actions to improve and address public health
with respect to water quality in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Foundation actions are a
subset of the priority actions identified in Chapter 7. These actions are considered to be
predecessor actions to be completed first in order to realize the full benefit of the other actions
identified in this WRP.

1-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 1-1

PUBLIC HEALTH TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets to be
Accomplished by 2015

Foundation Actions
1a. Conduct dry weather surveys to identify outfalls
that have dry weather flows
1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human
bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples)

1. Identify unknown sources of
bacteria, and correct/remove/
disconnect them

1c. Determine ownership/owner of outfalls that have
dry weather flows and/or human bacteria
1d. Initiate discussion with owner of outfall to begin
determining corrective actions
1e. Implement projects to correct/remove/disconnect
unknown sources of bacteria
2a. Identify recreational and body contact areas

2. Increase recreational use of
watershed and public access

3. Reduce bacteria sources from landbased activities

2b. Identify other areas suitable for recreation or body
contact
2c. Prioritize areas to restore for recreational use
identified in Action 2b based on success of Action
1e.
3a. Identify where public ownership of land can serve
as a starting point to increase riparian buffers
3b. Manage pet litter
3c. Implement programs to discourage unacceptably
high numbers of waterfowl from congregating near
water features - identify areas and take action to
discourage waterfowl feeding
3d. Implement projects and programs to comply with
MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction
requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in
coincidental bacteria reduction)
3d. Implement projects and programs to comply with
MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction
requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in
coincidental bacteria reduction)

The specific targets include the following:
Identify unknown sources of bacteria, including illicit connections
Item 1 on Table 1-1 indicates that this WRP prioritizes activities that will address illicit
connections. This is important for two reasons: (1) significant water quality improvements are
unlikely to occur until illicit connections are addressed, and (2) bacteria from illicit connections
are recognized as a greater threat to human health than bacteria from other sources.
Note: this WRP recognizes that future indicators of waterborne bacteria and the related
human health risk will likely be based upon more effective measures of human risk and not
based on fecal coliform. However, focusing on illicit connections is required regardless of
1-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

what indicator is used in the future. The key point is that actions to address unknown sources
of bacteria need to prioritize those that are associated with human sources of bacteria. See
Section 7.2.1 in Chapter 7 for a discussion of alternative pathogen indicators.
This WRP focuses efforts on specific stream reaches, or segments, to investigate illicit
connections based upon fecal coliform loadings from “unknown sources” determined during
water quality model development. The analysis of the modeling data suggests that efforts focus
on specific areas as noted in Chapter 7, Table 7-1.
Increase recreational use
In an effort to increase recreational use of the Kinnickinnic River watershed, this WRP seeks to
identify recreational areas where body contact occurs as well as areas that have the potential for
future recreational activity. There are gaps in the existing data sets and this WRP recommends
collecting additional data. Once identified and with unknown sources of bacteria addressed, the
areas with recreation potential would be prioritized and restored.
Reduce bacterial sources from land-based sources
This WRP recommends actions identified to address urban sources of fecal coliform bacteria,
including pet waste and waterfowl, identifying opportunities to expand riparian buffers as well as
projects to facilitate compliance with NR 151. See Chapter 7, Table 7-1.
b. Habitat and Aesthetics
Protecting and improving aquatic community health is also a critical goal of this WRP and
encompasses a wide range of water resources issues such as improving habitat conditions,
restoring natural flow and temperature regimes, removing trash, and addressing pollutants such
as chlorides, sediment, and BOD. Note that removing trash and general consideration of
aesthetics were a major concern for the Kinnickinnic WAT. This reflects the fact that most
people use visual criteria to assess impairment. These criteria can be translated into technical
standards which collectively are defined as habitat. Consequently the use of the phrase habitat
and aesthetics addresses both citizen and water resources professional elements. Based upon a
review of available data and consultations with local biological experts, Table 1-2 identifies
specific foundation actions (land-based and in-stream-based) to improve and address habitat and
aesthetics that are recommended by this WRP:

1-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 1-2

HABITAT AND AESTHETICS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS

Watershed Targets

Foundation Actions

Land-based

1a. Implement stormwater management practices at
the subwatershed level

1. Moderate flow regimes to decrease
flashiness

1b. Implement stormwater management practices at
the neighborhood level
1c. Maintain stormwater management practices at all
levels

2. Reduce water quality and quantity
impacts using green infrastructure

1d. Restore floodplain connectivity with the stream
system
2a. Implement green infrastructure to re-establish
more natural hydrology, reduce runoff and
improve water quality (continue and expand
current efforts; e.g. Green Milwaukee and MMSD's
green infrastructure plan)
3a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs

3. Reduce water quality impacts from
nonpoint runoff (focus on chlorides)

3b. Implement new pilot road salt reduction programs
3c. Implement road salt reduction program education

Instream-based
1. Restore fish and aquatic organism
passage from Lake Michigan to the
headwaters and tributaries (i.e. Follow 3Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined
in Appendix 4A)

1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the
mainstem
1b. Develop plans for removal of additional
obstructions on the mainstem or tributaries and
implement the plans
1c. Develop detailed assessments to expand
passage restoration efforts beyond the mainstem
to the tributaries, prioritize them, and implement
them

Moderate flow regimes to decrease flashiness
Flashiness is a measure of how rapidly flows increase and decrease due to wet weather and snow
melt. Flashiness within the Kinnickinnic river watershed tends to be high due to a high degree of
impervious surfaces as compared to the total land surface within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed that inhibits infiltration of surface runoff into the ground. Stream flashiness is an
impairment to habitat within the watershed. This WRP recommends actions to manage
stormwater at various levels and restore connectivity to adjacent floodplains to moderate
flashiness and improve habitat.

1-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Reduce impacts through green infrastructure
The other land-based target to address habitat and aesthetics within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed is focused on green infrastructure to address runoff quality and reduce runoff quantity.
These actions are prioritized in Chapter 7, Table 7-2.
Reduce nonpoint water quality impacts (focus on chlorides)
This WRP‟s analysis of habitat impairments revealed the important role of chlorides in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed. Consequently, this WRP focuses on chloride loading with respect
to nonpoint source pollution impacts to habitat. This WRP recommends actions to evaluate
existing road salt programs as well as actions to implement pilot programs and educational
programs to reduce road salt application. Actions to address chloride loading are prioritized in
Chapter 7, Table 7-2.
Restore fish passage throughout the watershed
Provision of fish and aquatic life passage includes the restoration and recreation of in-stream and
riparian habitat. This habitat provides not only refuge for fish and aquatic life, but also
comprises the feeding and breeding areas necessary for the survival of these organisms. This instream-based target depends upon the removal of concrete within the lower reaches of the
mainstem. While restoration efforts are critical in the lower reaches, this WRP also recommends
that fish passage restoration efforts are expanded to upstream tributaries. This WRP is also
responsive to the need to restore connectivity with adjacent floodplains and the restoration of
more natural hydrology by re-creating more meandering stream courses.
c. Nutrients
Phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan (and to a lesser extent within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed) has also been identified as a priority issue to be addressed by this WRP, and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is in the process of developing water
quality standards for phosphorus. The most significant sources of phosphorus are believed to be
from non-contact cooling water discharges and urban stormwater runoff. Table 1-3 presents the
specific nutrient-related Foundation actions that are recommended by this WRP:
TABLE 1-3
NUTRIENTS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets

Foundation Actions
1a. Continue adaptive implementation of overflow
control program

1. Reduce phosphorus loads from
regulated discharges

1b. Implement projects and programs to comply with
MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction
requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in
coincidental TP reduction)
1d. Reduce phosphorus loads with State ban of
phosphorus in commercial fertilizers

2. Reduce use of phosphorus compounds
for control of lead and copper in
drinking water systems

2a. Research development of alternatives to
phosphorus compounds by public and private
researchers in area universities and industries

1-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Reduce phosphorus loads from regulated discharges
This WRP identified four priority actions to target phosphorus loading from regulated
discharges, including combined sewer overflows and separate sewer overflows as well as
discharges that are regulated through NR 151 and the MS4 permitting process. This WRP also
emphasizes the benefits of Wisconsin‟s ban on phosphorus in commercial fertilizers and
recommends that additional studies be conducted and the progress on the phosphorus reductions
that result from the ban be reported.
Reduce use of phosphorus compounds in drinking water
Currently, phosphorus compounds are added to drinking water to control concentrations of
copper and lead. In many residential drinking water systems, copper and lead leach from piping
and can pose health concerns to the public, especially the very young. This WRP recommends
research and development of alternatives to the use of phosphorus compounds in drinking water.
1.3.6 Other Pollutants
Technical Report No. 39 of the RWQMPU indicates that (polychlorinated biphenyls) PCBs have
been detected within the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River and that PCB concentrations
generally increase from upstream to downstream. This WRP recognizes that PCBs and other
pollutants, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) nitrogen, copper, and pharmaceutical and
personal care products (PPCPs), also affect water quality within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed. Although this WRP does not identify or prioritize specific actions to address these
other pollutants, several of the recommended actions identified to address the three focus areas
would result in coincident loading reductions of the other pollutants. For example, the expansion
of riparian buffers to improve habitat and increase phosphorus removal from stormwater would
also simultaneously lead to some reductions in nitrogen loadings. More specific actions to
address PCBs, PAHs, nitrogen, copper, and PPCPs will be identified when future updates of this
WRP are developed.
1.3.7 Implementation and Monitoring
Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy is the final chapter of this WRP. This chapter addresses the
implementation of the various actions identified in Chapter 7. This WRP stresses the importance
of addressing funding issues and sources (see Appendix 8A) as well as post implementation
monitoring. Follow-up monitoring recommendations are also included in this WRP because
additional data will be needed to fulfill three primary objectives: (1) obtain additional data to
address information gaps and uncertainty in the current analysis, (2) ensure that the identified
management actions are undertaken, and (3) ensure that actions are having the desired effect.
Implementation activities will then be adjusted based on this new information through the use of
an adaptive management framework to be coordinated by the SWWT.
1.3.8 Policy Issues
Policy issues need to be addressed as projects are considered for implementation. The following
issues compose the initial list to be considered:
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development: Evaluation should include the timing
of any TMDLs, leadership of the TMDLs in terms of regulatory agencies
(WDNR/USEPA) versus “third party” (led by public agencies such as the MMSD) and
the exact format of the TMDLs (i.e., which pollutants and which portions of the

1-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

watershed). An additional potential issue is the regulatory relationship between NR 151
and TMDLs, as noted in Chapter 2 of this WRP.
Consideration of watershed permits: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are
summarized in the document White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting
Primer found in Appendix 8B.
Water quality trading: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are summarized in
Appendix 8C.
NR 151 implementation: The regulatory and financial issues regarding implementation
of NR 151 may influence the effectiveness of this regulation on water quality and the
implementation of this WRP.
Alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water: There are policy issues
that should be addressed as this major source of phosphorous to the watershed is not
currently the focus of any scientific or regulatory program.
Alternative indicator to replace fecal coliform bacteria: The policy implications of
building a local consensus for and support of new methods to assess water borne disease
risk need to be addressed.

1-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Chapter 2: Introduction
2.1

Purpose of the Watershed Restoration Plan

The primary purpose of this Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is to develop
an adaptive plan with stakeholders that works towards cost-effective water quality and habitat
improvement in the watershed. Recognizing the need to work towards meeting water quality
standards and that stakeholders would like to see improvements (particularly to habitat) that may
go beyond meeting water quality standards, the WRP provides specific actions that can be
implemented in the short term (three to five years) and lays out a more general plan for the long
term to meet these objectives.
The WRP used the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) as the stakeholder
group for development of the plan and will also use the SWWT as the vehicle for the plan‟s
implementation.
2.2

Pathway to the Watershed Restoration Plan

2.2.1 The Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update and the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District’s 2020 Facilities Planning Process (2002-2007)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s (USEPA) watershed approach to facilities planning
has been completed in southeastern Wisconsin by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) in partnership with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC), the region‟s 208 planning agency. This combined, innovative planning project –
called the “Water Quality Initiative” (WQI) – consisted of the MMSD‟s 2020 Facilities Plan
(2020 FP) and SEWRPC‟s Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU). The
2020 FP component of the WQI was completed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) in 2007 and concluded the following:
1) Nonpoint pollution (i.e., stormwater runoff) is the largest source of fecal coliform
bacteria, a primary pollutant of concern; however, it should be noted that a significant
fraction of the nonpoint bacteria load could be coming from failing (exfiltrating) sanitary
sewers or potentially illicit sanitary connections. The annual bacteria load percentages by
source category to the six greater Milwaukee watersheds (GMW) are shown in Figure 21.
2) Eliminating the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that occur two to three times per year
and the very infrequent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) that still may occur during
extreme wet weather conditions accompanied by widespread flooding will result in little
or no water quality improvement on an annual basis.
3) Significant improvements to water quality can only be achieved through regional
implementation of extensive measures to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources.
4) The MMSD‟s primary focus of the 2020 FP must be to develop a recommended plan that
meets the regulatory requirements regarding MMSD‟s point sources.
5) Recommendations for nonpoint control measures are presented in the RWQMPU because
MMSD lacks authority to implement regional nonpoint control measures.

2-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

6) There is no real framework for implementation of the recommendations of the
RWQMPU regarding the reduction of nonpoint stormwater pollution (nonpoint
stormwater in the planning efforts included surface runoff and discharges from storm
sewers and drainage ditches).

Rural
Nonpoint
Stormw ater
< 0.1%

Industrial
< 0.1%

SSOs
20%

CSOs
11%
Urban
Nonpoint
Stormw ater
69%

FIGURE 2-1: ANNUAL BACTERIA LOAD PERCENTAGES BY SOURCE CATEGORY TO THE
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED –YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS

2.2.2 Forging a New Path
As the WQI was being completed, many stakeholders in the Milwaukee area began to realize
that a means of implementing the broader recommendations of the RWQMPU was needed.
This is conceptually illustrated in Figure 2-2, which was an attempt to address the question what next? This question was often accompanied by the question - why can‟t we forge a new
path?

2-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Note that this figure shows an organization called the Milwaukee Regional Partnership Initiative. This
has been renamed the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
FIGURE 2-2: WHAT PATHWAYS EXIST FOR PROGRESS?

The USEPA encourages and supports watershed area planning intended to achieve needed water
quality improvements in the most cost effective manner. The RWQMPU recommends a holistic
set of pollution abatement actions that will ultimately lead to significantly improved water
quality in the GMW. These actions will address regulatory goals in terms of water quality
improvement and must be implemented by a variety of governmental agencies and individual
property owners. The question for the Milwaukee area was – how to start this process?
2.3

Plan Implementation Considerations

2.3.1

Consideration of Total Maximum Daily Load Analyses

A workshop on “Integrated Watershed Implementation Planning” was held in March 2007 and
was attended by the USEPA, WDNR, SEWRPC, MMSD and technical consultant staff, and
other local and national leaders in watershed planning. The purpose was to form the foundation
for the watershed implementation plan and, more specifically, consider the next steps for water
quality improvement in the Milwaukee area. The agenda for this meeting is shown in Appendix
2A.

2-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Input received at the workshop was intended to result in the formation of a technically- and
socially-feasible integrated watershed implementation plan that has the support of key
stakeholders, employing innovative implementation approaches (e.g., water quality trading,
watershed-based permitting, phased total maximum daily loads (TMDL)s, wet weather water
quality standards) intended to effectively and efficiently attain water quality standards in the
GMW. As a result of this workshop and many subsequent meetings in 2007, the MMSD,
working in concert with the USEPA and the WDNR, considered the initiation of a third party
TMDL effort.
The drivers for the third party TMDL were that the WDNR was not planning to initiate any
TMDL work in the GMW for many years and the implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural
Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management, a state of Wisconsin nonpoint pollution regulation
with compliance deadlines in 2008 and 2013. An additional concern was that the water quality
improvement efforts begun under the WQI should continue given the work already accomplished
and the momentum established in the community. This momentum was exemplified by the
formation of a new collaborative organization, the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust,
Inc., in the spring of 2008.
2.3.2

Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and NR 151

In October 2007, the MMSD Commission approved a contract with the 2020 FP technical team
to conduct third party TMDLs for the major watersheds in Milwaukee – the Milwaukee River,
Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River and Estuary/Lake Michigan watersheds.
Once this effort was approved, preliminary negotiations began with the WDNR staff to enlist
their input into the process and to begin technical discussions on the existing 303(d) listed
pollutants and other matters (see the WDNR‟s website for more information on impaired waters
and the 303(d) list).1 In other words, the MMSD, its technical team and the WDNR began in
depth technical discussions regarding the scope of the third party TMDL.
Typically, a TMDL is the framework for assessing load allocations in a watershed and is one of
the first steps in identifying the actions needed in a watershed to meet applicable water quality
standards. In the case of the GMW, the state‟s regulatory program, which is based on
performance standards contained in Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management, has already
been implemented. The performance standards contained in NR 151 require permitted
municipalities with separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to reduce total suspended solid (TSS)
loads by 20% by 2008 and 40% by 2013 from areas of existing development. New development
must implement stormwater management practices to reduce the TSS load from the site by 80%.
Technical standards have been developed by the state to implement the prescribed performance
standards. Other provisions of the regulations prescribe performance standards and prohibitions
for agricultural facilities and agricultural practices that are nonpoint sources and require
implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) when and if the Wisconsin
legislature provides funding for these facilities.
The MMSD and its technical team discussed with the WDNR the relationship between the third
party TMDL effort and the NR 151 regulatory requirements, which are essentially technologybased requirements. Discussions between the MMSD and the WDNR regarding application of
1

WDNR, 2008 Methodology for Placing Waters on the Impaired Waters List (last revised February 17, 2008),
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/2008/2008methodology.htm

2-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

NR 151 requirements independent of TMDL findings changed the course and form of the GMW
TMDL program.
2.3.3

Total Maximum Daily Loads and the Clean Water Act

The discussion between the MMSD‟s technical team and the WDNR related to some
fundamental assumptions of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). Specifically, the MMSD‟s
technical team and the WDNR analyzed the relative merits of building nonpoint/stormwater
water quality improvement actions from the “top down” – using a uniform technology program,
or from the “bottom up” – starting with existing water quality data and building programs
specifically to meet water quality objectives. The similarity between the NR 151 regulatory
requirement and the CWA is that the application of a uniform technology program is
fundamentally assumed to be the minimum effort needed to meet water quality standards.
Additional water quality improvement effort was assumed to be required when this minimum
initial activity based upon uniform technology application did not result in meeting water quality
standards. The original CWA envisioned that nonpoint/stormwater improvement would be based
solely on water quality, not on uniform, minimum technology requirements. As outlined in a
recent publication from the University of Texas:2
TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load and is the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a water body can receive from all of its sources and still meet water quality
standards set by the state for designated uses. Though TMDLs have only recently been
thrust into the spotlight, they are not a new idea. The TMDL program is simply the
enforcement of rules provided in the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Sections 303 (a),
303 (b), and 303 (c) of the CWA mandate that states develop water quality standards for
water bodies within their boundaries based on the designated uses of these water bodies.
These sections also provide guidelines for development and review of these standards.
The provisions in the CWA that called for non-point source pollution control and TMDLs
were largely ignored for 20 years following the passage of the CWA partly due to our
lack of knowledge concerning non-point source pollution and its control. Instead, efforts
to control water pollution were focused on implementing best available technology to
clean up point-source pollution.
Many challenges exist in the implementation of the TMDL program. Non-point source
pollution, which is basically stormwater runoff that has been polluted by land use, is still
not well understood. It is difficult to quantify loadings produced by non-point source
pollution and to predict the water quality responses of water bodies due to these
loadings. Also, the connection of non-point source pollution to land use means that it
must be controlled through land use practices, or the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). For the same reasons we do not understand non-point
source pollution, we do not fully understand the effectiveness of BMPs. Furthermore,
many landowners are affected by the TMDL program and must be involved in the
planning process. Considering that 21,000 water bodies were reported that did not meet
water quality standards, and that the resources of most state environmental agencies are
limited, the challenges facing the TMDL program are obviously substantial.
2

Lee C. Sherman, “Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Effects on Land Use Planning,” CE 385D Water
Resources Planning and Management University of Texas at Austin (May 5, 2001)

2-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2.3.4 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Nonpoint Pollution Program – Wis.
Admin. Code Natural Resources ( NR) 151 Runoff Management
The WDNR, believing that the “top down” technology-based regulatory program of NR 151
would result in the most cost effective and equitable area-wide water quality improvement,
believes that a third party TMDL effort would only add to the requirements of NR 151. The NR
151 regulation has the following purpose:
This chapter establishes runoff pollution performance standards for non−agricultural
facilities and transportation facilities and performance standards and prohibitions for
agricultural facilities and practices designed to achieve water quality standards as
required by s. 281.16 (2) and (3), Stats. This chapter also specifies a process for the
development and dissemination of department technical standards to implement the
non−agricultural performance standards as required by s. 281.16 (2) (b), Stats. If these
performance standards and prohibitions do not achieve water quality standards, this
chapter specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in
conformance with s. NR 151.004.
As noted in the above excerpt of the NR 151 regulation, the regulation makes the assumption
that “if these standards and prohibitions do not meet water quality standards, the chapter
specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in conformance with
s. NR 151.004.” The language of NR 151.004 is as follows:
For some areas, implementation of the statewide performance standards and prohibitions
in this chapter may not be sufficient to achieve water quality standards. In those cases,
the department shall determine if a specific waterbody will not attain water quality
standards after substantial implementation of the performance standards and
prohibitions in this chapter, using actual or predicted modeling or monitoring. If the
department finds that water quality standards will not be attained using statewide
performance standards and prohibitions but the implementation of targeted performance
standards would attain water quality standards, the department shall promulgate the
targeted performance standards by rule.
Note: Pursuant to s. 281.16 (2) (a) and (3) (a), Stats., the performance standards shall be
designed to meet state water quality standards.
The position of the WDNR is that imposition of the NR 151 performance standards will be
required in all cases in the state and, should the performance standards not result in the
attainment of water quality standards, the WDNR would then promulgate “targeted performance
standards” as noted in NR 151.004. The NR 151 standards never contemplated that water
quality standards could be attained without the imposition of the uniform technology standards
of NR 151, only that NR 151 was an essential starting point or minimum level of technology that
would need to be applied to “achieve water quality standards.”
2.4

Pathway Decision

Based on the results of the WQI planning project, the MMSD‟s technical team thought that there
was a possibility that the outcome of the third party TMDL may result in a different technology
plan and a different water quality improvement than the NR 151 performance standards. The
technical team understood the WDNR‟s assertion that the TMDL could result in additional
requirements over and above NR 151. The technical team suggested using scientific analysis to

2-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

contribute to a “bottom up” approach. The technical team based its idea on the analysis of
existing water quality data in the watersheds studied during the WQI planning project. Also, the
detailed water quality models developed during the WQI planning project were used to assess the
impact of NR 151 on water quality. Two model runs were developed using identical
assumptions except one model run assumed full implementation (urban measures only) of NR
151, and the second run assumed no implementation of NR 151.
A further concern existed regarding the lack of a water quality standard for TSS in Wisconsin.
The closest proxy that can be found is the United States Geological Service (USGS) “reference
concentration” for TSS. This estimate was used by the WDNR as the basis for TSS TMDLs in
other parts of the state. The “reference concentration” for TSS, based upon the USGS analysis of
watersheds in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, was expressed as a median concentration of
17.2 mg/l.3 The existing year 2000 model run, as summarized in SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU,
showed the following with regard to the existing condition model output:4
The RWQMPU water quality simulation model looked at 10 assessment points in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed. None of the assessment points had median TSS
concentrations that exceeded the USGS reference concentration TSS level of 17.2 mg/l.
The average of all the medians was 4.9 mg/l TSS and the median values ranged from 3.8
to 6.5 mg/l TSS. The means averaged 11.7 mg/l TSS with a range from 7.7 to 20.1 mg/l
TSS.
One significant result of these water quality model runs was that the TSS concentrations
in the Kinnickinnic River watershed under existing conditions were below the USGS
reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l TSS as a median value. Appendix N of the
RWQMPU also shows other water quality parameters studied, as well as the RWQMPU
revised year 2020 baseline, the revised baseline with the MMSD action of a five-year
level of protection (LOP) for SSOs, and the two RWQMPU conditions – one, the
conditions of the recommended plan and two, the “extreme measures” condition. This
analysis shows that even with the “extreme measures” condition (implementation of
many water quality improvement actions above and beyond NR 151 requirements), the
concentration of TSS is not materially changed.
The data on the existing water quality runs as well as the revised 2020 baseline with and
without NR 151 are shown in Appendix 2B. The model runs shown are only for the
MMSD assessment points, which are a subset of the RWQMPU assessment points and
consist of two assessment points in the Kinnickinnic River. Table 2-1 shows the results
of the model run on TSS “with” NR 151 and “without” NR 151.
Note: To maintain consistency with the RWQMPU, referenced above, the preceding sections use
„existing‟ to describe year 2000 data. Elsewhere in this WRP, the term „baseline‟ is used to
indicate year 2000 pollutant loading and water quality data.

3

USGS, Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes
Region and Adjacent Areas, Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5066 (2006)
4
SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning
Report No. 50, Appendix N, “Water Quality Summary Statistics for the Recommended Plan Tables” (December 5,
2007)

2-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 2-1

IMPACT OF NR 151 ON MODELED TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Watershed
Kinnickinnic
River
Kinnickinnic
River

Assessment
Location

RI-12

RI-13

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised
2020
Baseline
(No NR
151)

Revised
2020
Baseline
(W/ NR
151)

Difference

NR 151
Impact

-0.9
-1.6

-18.9%
-12.0%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

4.7
13.0

3.8
11.4

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

343

344

1

0.2%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

4.7
11.8

3.8
10.4

-0.9
-1.5

-19.2%
-12.4%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

347

348

1

0.2%

Notes:
The “no NR 151” data column is the revised 2020 baseline without simulated NR 151 impact, while the next column “revised 2020
baseline” is the same condition with NR 151 simulated impact.
The “TSS guideline” was developed in the WQI as a measure to assess how many days the watersheds met the guideline to allow
for comparison of alternatives since no TSS water quality standard exists.

The data show that NR 151 does improve TSS concentrations in a range from about 12% to 20%
in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, but the median TSS concentrations are already well below
the reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l.
The impact of NR 151 on fecal coliform levels, as shown in Appendix 2B data, is insignificant as
the improvement in the percent of time the standard is met in the typical year is no greater than
1% at any of the assessment points in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The most frequently
exceeded water quality parameter analyzed for the WQI in the GMW was compliance with the
existing fecal coliform water quality standards. Thus, based upon the data produced in the
RWQMPU, the imposition of NR 151 will have essentially no impact on fecal coliform
compliance. Information regarding fecal coliform pollution and actions that can help address it
are provided in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Given this complex situation, including the fact that the WDNR was in the process of evaluating
the NR 151 regulation and that the timetable for implementation of the regulation may be
lengthened, the MMSD and the technical team decided to pursue a different path for the
development of the detailed implementation plan for the WQI. This path, illustrated in Figure 23, was to develop a WRP instead of a third party TMDL.
This effort was based upon the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.5 The effort mirrors the TMDL
concept, but did not result in an actual TMDL or have the regulatory impact of a TMDL. This
effort began in July 2008.
The MMSD chose this route for the following reasons:

5

USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters, http://www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/watershed_handbook/, EPA 841-B-08-002 (March 2008)

2-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The steps are basically the same whether doing a TMDL or a plan that follows the CWA
section 319 guidelines (section 319 plan).
Many grant programs exist to facilitate the development of a section 319 plan.
A section 319 plan produces estimates of load reductions and end points similar to what a
TMDL would produce.
The work product of a section 319 plan can eventually be revised and used as the basis
for a TMDL.
These plans do not have the regulatory impact of a TMDL; thus, they offer different
pathways to get to watershed permits, trading, etc.
Finally, the WDNR has already developed an innovative approach to watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL called an Environmental Accountability Project (EAP).
Although an EAP is not a viable option for the Kinnickinnic River watershed because of
the complex water quality issues being addressed, it is an example of watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL. Similar to the idea behind the development of the WRP,
the WDNR and USEPA Region 5 have developed this approach, which avoids the need
for a TMDL and the listing of stream segments on the state 303(d) list and affords the
ability
to use the EAP
as the
routeWATERSHED
to a watershed permit
and eventually watershed-based
FRAMEWORK
FOR
THE
RESTORATION
PLANS
trading.

SWWT

FIGURE 2-3: FRAMEWORK FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

2-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The development of a WRP that is based on a USEPA 319 plan has the benefit of allowing the
plan to focus on „bottom up‟ planning while incorporating the water quality improvement
benefits of a „top down‟ plan. In other words, the development of this type of WRP used water
quality data and science to specifically target the water quality-based needs of the Kinnickinnic
River watershed, but also incorporates the impacts of the „top down‟ implementation of uniform
technology programs such as the NR 151 regulation. This type of plan not only realizes the
water quality benefits of both types of planning approaches, it also addresses the concerns of a
wide range of stakeholders, including communities, citizen groups, WDNR, USEPA, SEWRPC,
and MMSD.
2.5

Development of the Watershed Restoration Plan

2.5.1

Overview

This WRP represents the next step in the implementation of a science-based watershed
improvement effort. This second-level planning effort builds upon the sound science, extensive
data, and alternatives analysis of the WQI. The result of this work effort is this adaptive, phased
WRP for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This WRP contains the following:
The characterization of the baseline conditions within the Kinnickinnic River watershed
highlighting a few important planning considerations, including the following:
o

The watershed contains highly developed urban areas – a critical consideration
during implementation.

o

The importance of identifying unknown sources of fecal coliform bacteria within
the watershed.

o

The predominant role of nonpoint sources with respect to nutrient loading.
However, the analysis also revealed the need to consider non-contact cooling
water and the role of phosphate compounds in drinking water when identifying
priority actions to curb nutrient loading.

o

Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed.
The critical habitat impairments identified herein help prioritize actions to
improve habitat within the watershed.

The results of a collaborative stakeholder involvement effort that was based upon
interaction with a newly formed partnership called the SWWT. This is a voluntary, nontaxing partnership of independent units of government, special purpose districts,
agencies, organizations, and members at large that share common goals. These entities
agreed to work collaboratively to achieve healthy and sustainable water resources
throughout the GMW. Through the stakeholder input of the SWWT, three major focus
areas emerged for the WRP: bacteria/public health, habitat and aesthetics, and
nutrients/phosphorus. These focus areas reflect the linkage between water quality
parameters and the way people use and enjoy the streams in the Kinnickinnic River
watershed.
An implementation strategy that focuses on priority actions that should take place in the
near term to meet long-term water quality goals and provides direction for future actions.

2-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

An initial list of policy issues that may influence the implementation schedule and
process. The policy issues should be prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy
Committee as projects are considered for implementation.
An important issue addressed during the development of this WRP was how to best integrate
other ongoing watershed management efforts (e.g., recommendations in the RWQMPU and the
2020 FP, various nonpoint water quality improvements as a result of USEPA‟s Phase II
stormwater requirements, and the impact of NR 151) with this effort. The technical team, along
with input from the SWWT, developed an approach to build on the recommendations of the
RWQMPU. Therefore, the recommendations from the RWQMPU, the 2020 FP, Phase II
requirements and impacts of NR 151 were all included in the analysis.
The goals from the RWQMPU were used as a starting point for the WRP. Although achieving
these goals is not expected to meet water quality standards for all pollutants in all areas of the
watershed, especially for fecal coliform, achieving them will provide a significant incremental
step towards water quality and habitat improvement. A substantial amount of work will be
required in the watershed to implement the recommended actions to meet these goals. Once
these goals are met, additional work can be done to go beyond the RWQMPU goals. This is
discussed below and in Chapter 8.
The overall implementation strategy of the WRP is presented in Chapter 8. The implementation
strategy incorporates adaptive management to identify and implement actions, monitor
incremental progress toward achieving water quality and habitat improvements, and modify the
actions as necessary. The recommended phasing strategy for implementation of this WRP is as
follows:
Phase 1- Completed and Committed Actions/Projects: The first phase in implementing this
WRP includes identifying relevant actions or projects that have been recently completed and a
recommendation to implement already committed projects and programs.As such, the technical
analysis underpinning this WRP started with the “baseline” WQI water quality model and
“added in” all the committed projects as of January 1, 2008 using the same approach taken for
the WQI (see Appendix 4B for a description of the updates made to the WQI model). This phase
represents recent progress and will continue approximately through the year 2015.
Phase 2 – Implement Identified Foundation Actions and Other Identified High Priority
Actions: The second phase of adaptive implementation includes the implementation of the
foundation actions and the other high priority actions identified in the RWQMPU and by the
SWWT committees during the development of the WRP. This phase also represents progress in
the years 2010 to about 2015.
Phase 3 – Full Implementation of the RWQMPU: The third phase of adaptive
implementation of this WRP consists of full implementation of the RWQMPU
recommendations. Depending on the monitoring results of the first two phases, these actions
could include more widespread implementation of the same or modified actions or they could
include most of the remaining elements contained in the RWQMPU (medium- and low-priority
actions) and the additional actions identified through the development of the WRP. These
actions are discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this WRP. An emphasis would be placed on the
controls that are determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during

2-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Phases 1 and 2. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort.
This phase would represent progress in the years 2016 to about 2020.
It is anticipate that Phase 3 would result in meeting the water quality and habitat improvement
goals presented in the RWQMPU and discussed in Chapter 3 of this WRP. Phase 3 is not
presented further in this WRP because the details of this phase will depend upon the results of
Phase 1 and 2.
Phase 4 – Enhanced Level of Controls: The final fourth phase of adaptive implementation of
this WRP consists of an enhanced level of controls to further improve water quality or habitat
beyond the goals established by the RWQMPU. Depending on the monitoring results of the first
three phases, these actions could include more widespread implementation of the same or
modified actions. An emphasis would be placed on the controls that are determined to be most
successful (technically, socially, and financially) during Phases 1, 2 and 3. The development of
the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase could overlap with Phase 3
and could represent progress in the years 2016 to 2020 or beyond.
Phase 4 is not yet developed nor presented in this chapter because this phase will depend upon
the results of Phases 1, 2 and 3.
Phase 5 – Fully Meet Water Quality Standards: The final phase of implementation could be
the adoption of all controls necessary to fully meet achievable water quality standards, whether
those are the existing standards, site-specific standards, or future changes in water quality
standards. This phase could occur after 2020.
2.5.2

Detailed Tasks

The tasks listed below served as the technical basis for developing this WRP to meet water
quality standards and protect water resources in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The tasks are
organized according to the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. The nine elements are the
following:
1) Identify causes of impairment and pollutant sources that need to be controlled to achieve
needed load reductions and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. This
information was used to develop a conceptual plan for the Kinnickinnic River WRP.
2) Estimate the load reductions expected from management measures.
3) Describe the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load
reductions, including a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be
needed.
4) Estimate the amount of technical and financial assistance needed, the associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan.
5) Develop an information and education component to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage early and continued participation.
6) Develop a schedule for implementing the identified management measures.
7) Describe interim measurable milestones for determining whether the management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.

2-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

8) Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are
being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water
quality standards.
9) Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time.
The innovative watershed planning effort conducted during the development of this WRP
included the following:
A series of workshops conducted with the SWWT committees, which included
representatives from the WDNR, to obtain their input on the scope of the WRP effort (to
finalize the pollutants to be assessed and to confirm the water quality targets to be used
for pollutants without numeric criteria).
The development of an adaptive management and adaptive implementation approach
that will allow proposed controls to be implemented, monitored, refined, and revisited so
that effective implementation of the WRP will be achieved.
Analysis of management measures consisting of facilities, programs, operational
improvements and policies (FPOPs). The prioritization from the RWQMPU was used as
the basis and was revised, as necessary, based on input from the SWWT committees.
The management measures were prioritized based on their potential to result in the
greatest improvement to water quality and habitat. The FPOPs identified as high priority
actions were organized by assessment points, which generally correspond to subwatersheds.
The development of an implementation strategy that includes guidance regarding the
implementation process, implementation schedule, potential funding sources, identified
policy issues and monitoring.
2.6

Summary

This Kinnickinnic River WRP focuses on nonpoint source controls and the management of
polluted stormwater runoff. This plan builds upon initiatives over the past 30 years that were
directed primarily at controlling point source pollution through the implementation of the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program and MMSD‟s Overflow Reduction Plan (Point
Source Plan), which will be completed by 2010. This WRP represents a “bottom-up” approach
and includes the regulatory actions required under NR 151 and recognizes the importance of
addressing many potential nonpoint pollution sources as well as working across political or
jurisdictional lines. Throughout the development of this WRP, the goal was to identify actions
that would improve water quality in the most cost effective way. As this WRP evolves and is
implemented in the future, regulatory and technical issues will continue to be resolved through
the collaborative efforts of all parties involved in the Kinnickinnic River watershed restoration
planning effort.

2-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

APPENDIX 2A

2-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

APPENDIX 2B

2-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Fecal Coliform

Watershed

Kinnickinnic
River

Kinnickinnic
River

Assessment
Location

RI-12

RI-13

Measure
Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season)
Mean (Swimming season)
Median (Swimming season)
Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming
season)
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
(Swimming season)
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
(Swimming season)
Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season)
Mean (Swimming season)
Median (Swimming season)
Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming
season)
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
(Swimming season)
Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month
(Swimming season)

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)
% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml

608
4,999
306
261
215
75%
322
3,012
137

560
4,885
295
266
215
75%
295
2,978
116

-48
-114
-11
5
0
0%
-26
-34
-21

-8.2%
-1.1%
-15.6%

Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)

148

148

1

0.3%

Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)

110

109

-1

-0.8%

% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)
% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml

87%
750
5,049
368
244
216
75%
444
3,031
213

86%
702
4,942
361
250
215
75%
416
2,999
195

-1%
-48
-107
-7
6
-1
0%
-27
-32
-19

Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)

138

140

2

1.7%

Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)

111

110

-1

-0.9%

% of time standard is met

87%

86%

-1%

Note:
Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.

2-19

NR 151
Impact
-7.9%
-2.3%
-3.5%
1.8%
-0.2%

-6.4%
-2.1%
-2.0%
2.6%
-0.5%
-6.2%
-1.1%
-8.7%

Watershed Restoration Plan

Watershed

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River

Assessment
Location

RI-12

RI-13

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Revised 2020
Baseline
Units / Criteria
(No NR 151)

Measure

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

11.4

11.4

0.0

0.0%

Mean

mg / L

11.3

11.3

0.0

0.0%

Variance standard

Days met (2 mg/L)

365

365

0

0.0%

Variance standard

% of time standard is met

100%

100%

0%

Median

mg / L

11.5

11.5

0.0

0.0%

Mean

mg / L

11.4

11.4

0.0

0.0%

Variance standard

Days met (2 mg/L)

365

365

0

0.0%

Variance standard

% of time standard is met

100%

100%

0%

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Note:
Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.

Watershed

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River

Assessment
Location

RI-12

RI-13

Measure

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Revised 2020
Baseline
Units / Criteria
(No NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

4.7

3.8

-0.9

-18.9%

Mean

mg / L

13.0

11.4

-1.6

-12.0%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

343

344

1

0.2%

Median

mg / L

4.7

3.8

-0.9

-19.2%

Mean

mg / L

11.8

10.4

-1.5

-12.4%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

347

348

1

0.2%

2-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Total Nitrogen (TN)

Watershed

Assessment
Location

Kinnickinnic River

RI-12

Kinnickinnic River

RI-13

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

1.19

1.13

-0.07

-5.7%

Mean

mg / L

1.36

1.30

-0.06

-4.2%

Median

mg / L

1.18

1.12

-0.07

-5.6%

Mean

mg / L

1.32

1.26

-0.06

-4.3%

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Watershed

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River

Assessment
Location

RI-12

RI-13

Measure

Units

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

0.167

0.164

-0.003

-1.9%

Mean

mg / L

0.201

0.198

-0.003

-1.7%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

33

37

4

12.8%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

24%

25%

1%

Median

mg / L

0.160

0.157

-0.003

Mean

mg / L

0.191

0.188

-0.003

-1.7%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

45

50

5

12.0%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

27%

27%

1%

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

-2.0%

Copper

Watershed
Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River

Assessment
Location
RI-12

RI-13

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

Measure
mg / L

Units

0.0020

0.0017

0.000

-13.6%

Mean

mg / L

0.0043

0.0040

0.000

-7.6%

Median

mg / L

0.0020

0.0017

0.000

-13.2%

Mean

mg / L

0.0044

0.0040

0.000

-7.4%

2-21

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Chapter 3: Build Partnerships
3.1

Stakeholders for the Watershed Restoration Plan

As the watershed restoration planning effort was initiated, the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MMSD) decided to use the newly formed Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) as the stakeholder group for the effort. The SWWT is the ideal
stakeholder group because it was formed to improve water quality throughout the greater
Milwaukee watersheds (GMW), and the goal of this watershed restoration plan (WRP) is to
develop the next steps to be initiated to improve water quality in the Kinnickinnic River
watershed.
The watershed restoration planning process is an ongoing collaborative effort. Work to date has
included the following:
Identification of key stakeholders
Identification of issues of concern
Establishment of preliminary goals
Development of indicators
Implementation of public outreach
Building partnerships is the cornerstone of the SWWT and its mission is one of collaboration to
achieve healthy and sustainable water resources throughout the GMW. The SWWT is building
an active membership of organizations committed to its mission, purposes, and goals.
Participation is open to a large membership of diverse non-traditional stakeholders that actively
participate in all activities of the SWWT and take personal and community responsibility to
improve our water resources.
The SWWT collaborates with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as part of this effort and
has specifically identified five activities to help restore the watersheds in southeastern
Wisconsin. For each activity, specific objectives, tasks, and measurable outcomes are defined.
The activities and participating organizations are listed below.
1) Perform monitoring, modeling, and science work (Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Clean
Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin)
2) Participate in the development and implementation of the WRP (Milwaukee Riverkeeper,
Clean Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, River
Revitalization Foundation, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center)
3) Initiate legal and policy implementation of the WRP (Midwest Environmental Advocates,
Sixteenth Street Community Health Center and Clean Wisconsin)
4) Develop an outreach and communications strategy (1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Midwest Environmental Advocates)

3-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

5) Provide SWWT administration and committee support (create an integrated and long
lasting structure that supports watershed restoration across municipal and organizational
boundaries)
3.2

Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.

The SWWT and its committee members are the stakeholders for this WRP and provide the
structure for ongoing engagement and action. The SWWT is comprised of members who are
committed to actively and publicly support the mission, goals, and objectives of the SWWT as
established by its members and approved and amended by the Executive Steering Council (ESC).
Initially, a list of potential stakeholders in all the watersheds was compiled, including NGOs,
municipalities, permit holders, universities, industries, and others as part of the restoration
planning effort. Potential stakeholders were invited to participate on Watershed Action Teams
(WAT)s. Appendix 3A lists the groups invited to participate.

FIGURE 3-1: SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS TRUST, INC. MEMBERS

As shown in Figure 3-1, the SWWT consists of a general membership and four main
committees: Executive Steering Council, Science Committee, Policy Committee, and the
Watershed Action Teams. The functions and members of the committees are discussed in
subsections 3.2.1 – 3.2.4 below. When the SWWT was first developed in February 2008, an
organizing committee appointed the members of the SWWT Executive Steering Council. Soon
thereafter, the Executive Steering Council appointed the Science Committee. The Science
Committee established a Modeling Subcommittee to collaborate on water quality modeling
issues and a Habitat Subcommittee to develop preliminary ideas on habitat-related watershed
improvements. The SWWT formed two Watershed Action Teams - one for the Menomonee
River watershed and one for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Each Watershed Action Team
has a set of co-chairs.

3-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The SWWT members filling committee roles may include independent units of government,
special purpose districts, agencies, organizations, companies, and members at large. Members
may be asked to commit institutional resources to help fulfill the mission, goals, and objectives
adopted by the SWWT. In return, members expect collaborative actions that work toward
achieving healthy and sustainable water resources that benefit them and any constituents they
might represent.
Upon initiating this WRP, the project team (consultants and MMSD staff) worked with the
SWWT and met with the ESC, WATs and the Science Committee. Several general meetings
were held with the ESC at the beginning of the project. From October 2008 to March 2010, nine
meetings were held with the Science Committee, one meeting was held with the modeling
subcommittee, four meetings were held jointly with the Menomonee River WAT and the
Kinnickinnic River WAT, and five meetings were held separately with the Kinnickinnic River
WAT. Several meetings were also held with the SWWT committee chairs during this time.
As noted above, the members of the committees are listed in subsections 3.2.1 – 3.2.4 below.
The lists provided reflect the participating committee members as they existed at the time the
WRP was developed. It is anticipated that the SWWT website will maintain the most up-to-date
membership lists, as membership is anticipated to change over time.
3.2.1 Executive Steering Council
The SWWT is managed by a subset of its participant members on the ESC. The 15 member
ESC undertakes management and administrative functions of the SWWT. The council uses
input from the WATs to review annual watershed priority lists of projects and programs
supported by the SWWT. The ESC considers and recommends projects to undertake and fund at
the watershed or subwatershed level and monitors and reports on project results.
Membership of the ESC is listed below.
Preston Cole, City of Milwaukee
Ken Yunker, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Nancy Frank, Acting Chair, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Tom Grisa, City of Brookfield
Henry Hamilton III, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) - Milwaukee Branch
Andy Holschbach, Ozaukee County
David Lee, We Energies
Scott Mathie, Metropolitan Builders Association
Peter McAvoy, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Christine Nuernberg, City of Mequon
Neil Palmer, Village of Elm Grove
Kevin Shafer, MMSD

3-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Reggie Newson, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)
Dan Stoffel, Washington County Board
Sharon Gayan, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (non-voting
member)
Meeting dates: October 8, 2008; December 3, 2008; January 14, 2009; February 11, 2009; April
8, 2009; June 10, 2009; August 12, 2009; October 14, 2009; December 9, 2009; February 10,
2010.
3.2.2 Science Committee, Modeling, and Habitat Subcommittees
The Science Advisory Committee advises the SWWT ESC on important science and technical
issues. The committee ensures that a wide range of interests are considered in scientific
discussions and focuses on issues of a scientific and technical nature to achieve watershed
objectives. The Science Committee identifies and makes recommendations on scientific and
technical issues, including identifying areas where further study is necessary. It also provides
scientific and technical input to project selection, project progress monitoring, and watershed/
subwatershed project implementation.
The following are members of the Science Committee:
Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Chris Clayton, River Alliance of Wisconsin
Chris Magruder, MMSD
Claus Dunkelberg, Milwaukee 7 Water Council
Eric Loucks, AECOM
Ezra Meyer, Vice Chair, Clean Wisconsin
Ginny Plumeau, Cedarburg Science, LLC
Jennifer Runquist, League of Women Voters
Marsha Burzynski, WDNR
Mike Hahn, SEWPRC
Peter Hughes, United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Sandra McLellan, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Great Lakes WATER Institute
(GLWI)
Steve Melching, Marquette University
Tim Ehlinger, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee,
Tony Remsen, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, GLWI (retired)
Val Klump, Chair, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Director GLWI

3-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Meeting dates: October 28, 2008; January 20, 2009; March 4, 2009; April 9, 2009; May 14,
2009; July 30, 2009; September 28, 2009; November 18, 2009; and December 15, 2009.
The Modeling Subcommittee members are listed below.
Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Chris Magruder, MMSD
Claus Dunkelberg, Milwaukee 7 Water Council
Eric Loucks, AECOM
Ezra Meyer, Clean Wisconsin
Ginny Plumeau, Cedarburg Science, LLC
Jennifer Runquist, League of Women Voters
John Hoopes, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Ken Potter, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Marsha Burzynski, WDNR
Mike Hahn, SEWRPC
Peter Hughes, USGS
Peter Taglia, Clean Wisconsin
Sandra McLellan, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, GLWI
Steve Melching, Marquette University
Tim Ehlinger, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Tony Remsen, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, GLWI (retired)
Val Klump, Chair, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Director GLWI
Meeting date: February 18, 2008.
The Habitat Subcommittee members are listed below.
Chris Magruder, MMSD
Marsha Burzynski, WDNR
Tom Slawski, SEWRPC
Steve Melching, Marquette University
Tim Ehlinger, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Val Klump, Chair, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Director GLWI
The Habitat Subcommittee met on a weekly basis with various representatives from MMSD,
WDNR, USGS, and staff from the universities to obtain data and information as well as discuss
issues relevant to the biological communities and habitat within the Kinnickinnic and
Menomonee River watersheds. In addition, this subcommittee regularly attended the
3-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watershed Action Team meetings to share results and
discuss ideas related to habitat issues within each watershed and potential mitigation strategies
and remedial actions. This subcommittee met informally during the period May 2009 through
December 2009.
3.2.3 Watershed Action Teams
The WATs advise the SWWT ESC on important watershed-specific issues pertaining to its
activities and implement projects either as a body or by enabling its member organizations. In
fulfilling its roles, the WATs perform the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all watershed discussions.
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives.
3) Work with SEWRPC to develop this WRP.
4) Identify issues and prepare a priority list of watershed-specific projects and programs to
be supported by the SWWT, based on this WRP. Recommend this list to the ESC for
their review and approval.
5) Identify and make recommendations on watershed-specific issues.
6) Undertake projects or advise on member projects that have been awarded by the ESC.
7) Record WAT meeting notes and report to the ESC.
The following co-chairs were elected to lead the Kinnickinnic WAT:
Ben Gramling, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Ben Sykes, Foley & Lardner LLP
The membership list is included in Appendix 3B.
Joint meeting dates with the Menomonee River WAT: November 11, 2008; December 8, 2008;
February 2, 2009; and May 5, 2009. Separate meeting dates: August 4, 2009; September 21,
2009; October 20, 2009; November 19, 2009; and March 16, 2010.
3.2.4 Policy Committee
The Policy Committee advises the SWWT ESC on important public policy and legal issues
pertaining to its activities. The Policy Committee performs the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all public policy and legal
discussions
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives
3) Identify and make recommendations on public policy and legal issues
4) Record Policy Committee meeting notes and report to the ESC
The Policy Committee members are listed below.
Peter McAvoy, Chair - South Sixteen Community Health Center
Dan Collins, Elutions
3-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

James Fratrick, WDNR
Shawn Graff, Ozaukee Washington Land Trust
Susan Greenfield, Root-Pike Watershed Initiative Network
Henry Hamilton, NAACP
Jill Hapner, Washington County Land Conservation
Andy Holschbach, Ozaukee County
Steve Keith, Milwaukee County
Bruce Keyes, Foley & Lardner LLP
Scott Mathie, Metropolitan Builders Association
Ezra Meyer, Clean Wisconsin
Mike Murphy, City of Milwaukee Alderman
Neil Palmer, Village of Elm Grove
Melissa Scanlan, Midwest Environmental Advocates
Kevin Shafer, MMSD
Ken Yunker, SEWRPC
3.3
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Linked Goals (concurrent with
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update Pollutant Reduction Goals)
In order to establish goals for this WRP, the ESC suggested combining the goals established by
the SWWT and the goals from SEWRPC‟s Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
(RWQMPU). A document entitled Linked Goals and Objectives for the Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, Inc. and SEWRPC’s Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update was
developed in April 2009. In order to continuously focus and strive to accomplish its mission, the
SWWT developed and approved the following four goals:
1) Make measurable progress toward improving the water resources in the region
2) Identify/support land use practices and designs that enhance/improve water resources and
promote and restore ecological benefits
3) Forge and strengthen relationships to leverage funding and recommend policies to assist
in the implementation of projects to produce lasting water resource benefits and cost
savings throughout the GMW and nearshore Lake Michigan
4) Implement cost-effective projects that result in measurable improvements in water quality
and water resources

3-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The focus of the SWWT is on implementing these goals; however, the SWWT recognizes that its
efforts must build on the goals, objectives, and recommendations of SEWRPC„s RWQMPU.1
The RWQMPU provides a relevant and transparent foundation for moving forward.
Below is a detailed listing of the RWQMPU‟s measurable water quality improvement goals for
the Kinnickinnic River watershed and its objective categories paired to an extensive list of
recommendations and/or implementation strategies. Programs and projects supported by the
SWWT were evaluated relative to their potential to make progress toward these measurable
goals.
Measurable Water Quality Improvement Goals
In general, the degree of improvement in water quality resulting from implementation of the
plan‟s recommendations will be evaluated through comparison of existing vs. future measured
water quality conditions. These measurable goals can serve as indicators of progress being made
toward improving water quality conditions. The goals range from changes to land use, pollutant
load reductions and improvements to habitat and aesthetics.
Note on using aesthetics with habitat as a goal. While a consensus was reached during the
development of the WRP by the Kinnickinnic WAT to include aesthetic improvement with
habitat as a goal, it is recognized that aesthetic improvement does not always translate to
ecologically-based (habitat) improvement. The use of aesthetics as a goal does present a
challenge in some cases because criteria for aesthetic improvement vary among people and over
time. For example, a concrete-lined channel with managed turf in the riparian area adjacent to
accessible parking may be perceived as aesthetically-ideal to some, but as sterile to others.
Alternatively, a naturalized stream that courses through a wide, wooded riparian corridor has
improved ecological function, but may present challenges in terms of litter control, maintenance
and law enforcement. This WRP acknowledges that aesthetic improvement does not always
relate directly to water quality or habitat improvement, but in many cases they are all linked. In
addition, aesthetic improvement is strongly related to quality of life issues and environmental
justice issues. For the purpose of this WRP, aesthetic improvement impacts amenity value,
personal relationships to the resource, and community connections necessary to provide the
financial resources necessary to address habitat and water quality concerns.
The preceding goals that are to be achieved by 2020 can be reviewed in the Plan Summary of the
RWQMPU, which details the goals for the entire RWQMPU.2
Specific to the Kinnickinnic River watershed, the RWQMPU goals are the following:
1) Habitat/Aesthetics Improvements
a. Renovating and rehabilitating concrete channels where concrete lining removal
can be accomplished without creating flood or erosion hazards
1

SEWRPC implements Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act toward the goal of achieving water use
objectives for surface waters within the region through a sound and workable plan for the abatement of water
pollution.
2
SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Plan
Summary, http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/planningprogramreport/pr-050_summary_water_quality_plan_
greater_mke_watersheds.pdf (revised January 2009)

3-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

b. Considering renovation of the MMSD Kinnickinnic River Flushing Station
c. Preparing abandonment and associated riverine restoration plans for dams,
specifically addressing sedimentation issues
d. Limiting culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments and
designing such necessary features to allow the passage of aquatic organisms
e. Developing restoration and remediation programs for riverine and impoundment
sites with contaminated sediments
f. Implementing the Kinnickinnic River Environmental Restoration Project, which
will result in the removal of up to 170,000 cubic yards of sediments contaminated
with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), removing about 90 percent of the PCB mass in the project area, during
2008 and 2009
g. Expanding the existing Jones Island Confined Disposal Facility by constructing a
raised perimeter dike, consistent with the 2007 recommendation of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
h. Improving the habitat of stream systems by accomplishing the following:
Enhancing streambank stability
Limiting instream sediment deposition
Implementing techniques to moderate the effects of channelization
Restoring instream and riparian habitat
2) Pollutant Load Reduction Goals
Based upon the comparison of the Year 2020 (the estimated future condition as defined in
Chapter 4) and the Baseline Year 2000 (the existing condition as defined in Chapter 4), the
following pollutants load reductions are estimated for the Kinnickinnic River watershed:
a) Total Phosphorus:

20% (2,600 pound reduction)

b) Total Suspended Solids (TSS):

23% (1.2 million pound reduction)

c) Fecal Coliform Bacteria:

52% (2,600 trillion cell reduction)

d) Total Nitrogen:

12% (9,000 pound reduction)

e) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): 14% (58,000 pound reduction)
f) Copper:

19% (107 pound reduction)

The breakdown of the load reductions for each of the major components of the RWQMPU is
presented in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6 of this WRP. The modeled Baseline 2000 and Year 2020
water quality assessments are presented in Section 6.4 of chapter 6. Section 6.4 presents
assessments of flashiness, fecal coliform, TSS, total phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen (DO).
The assessments are based on the percentage of time in compliance with either water quality
standards or targets.

3-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

It is important to note that achieving these goals will not meet water quality standards at every
location in the watershed, 365 days per year. As explained in Chapter XI of the RWQMPU
(Planning Report No. 50) achieving the goals for BOD would generally result in a high level of
compliance (defined as compliance 85% of the time or greater) with the water quality standards
and more moderate compliance for phosphorus and TSS. Achieving the fecal coliform load
reduction goal would generally result in a high level of compliance with the standards during the
summer months, but a low degree of compliance is expected when looking at data for the full
year. Based on the model results, in order to meet all of the fecal coliform standards 100% of the
time in all areas of the watershed, over 90% of the total load would need to be reduced.
Note, for the RWQMPU, the variance standards were used for DO and fecal coliform where
applicable. For the WRP analysis, the SWWT committees decided to look at compliance
assuming the variance standards did not apply. Therefore, the results shown in Chapter 6 of the
WRP do not show as much of an increase as the results of the RWQMPU for fecal coliform and
DO. However, reaching the goals listed above is one of the first steps in improving water quality
and habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive
watershed management approach is implemented.
To get a sense of what achieving the water quality standards means, the RWQMPU links the
water quality objectives to the water use objectives. In general, the Kinnickinnic River is
classified as a warm water fishery. Therefore, meeting the water quality standards should allow
the river to support fish such as walleye and bass. However, there are other factors, such as
habitat, that need to be considered when predicting the type of aquatic life that could potentially
be sustained.
3.3.1 Watershed Action Team Visioning Session
The Kinnickinnic River WAT participated in a visioning session in December 2008. The
purpose of this session was not to determine specific goals or objectives, but to determine the
parameters on which the WRP should focus. Project team staff asked the following three
questions to help discover values-based water resource expectations of the members:
How do you want the Kinnickinnic River to look?
What activities do (or would) you like to do in the Kinnickinnic River?
On behalf of aquatic and plant life, what do you think the Kinnickinnic River needs?
While some respondents directly answered the questions and others responded more generally, it
was staff‟s opinion that answers were generally in line with recommendations of the RWQMPU.
The compiled list of responses that was developed from the WAT visioning session and
considered by the Science Committee is shown below.
Manmade channels:
Concrete channels

3-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

o

Remove concrete channels in the Kinnickinnic River (See Chapter V of SEWRPC
Technical Report No. 39 for locations of drop structures and concrete-lined channels
in the Kinnickinnic River)3

o

Consider erosion control

Streams should be daylighted (remove streams from enclosed conduit); however,
consider safety and unintended consequences (e.g., flooding)
Need to think about safety vs. vistas and drawing people to the river
Make the Kinnickinnic River look like a river and not like a drainage ditch
In-stream conditions:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Reduce litter via programs (i.e., source control)
Introduce environmentally-friendly sheet piling and bulkheads
Reduce algae blooms
Remove sediment island south of Lincoln Avenue (if not natural)
Limit motor boat use upstream of Becher Street
Increase diversity and complexity to the system
Riparian areas:
Remove structures from riparian areas that are also located within the floodplain.
Protect/restore riparian habitat and use diverse, native vegetation
Provide increased riparian areas (i.e., buffers); 120‟ minimum
Construct, treat and restore wetlands
Improve public access to the river; mandate public access with any new development
(indirect improvement through increased recreational use, awareness of, and connection
to the river)
Implement mandates to address imperviousness with new development and
redevelopment
Remove coal pile at the port or provide a buffer between the pile and the river (if
possible)
Create more trails along river
Implement geese management and gull management, if applicable

3

SEWRPC, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Technical
Report No. 39, Chapter V, “Surface Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Kinnickinnic River
Watershed” (November 2007)

3-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In-stream and riparian areas:
Restore native species and remove invasive species
Use less road salt
Desired uses:
Kayaking/canoeing with access points identified
Fishing of a quality that provides fish for human consumption
Live by the river
Bird watching
Overarching and vision:
Education tool for public and children
Signage that is sensitive to the existing environment
Interpretive signage for safety and historical appreciation, that is done well
Vision: Kinnickinnic River is an integral part of the community that supports life and
public health; view river as an asset
Usage
o Conduct studies that consider usage and density
o Manage usage (provide plan and an entity to manage)
3.3.2 Watershed Restoration Plan Focus Areas
The Science Committee used the input from the WAT visioning session to determine parameters
that should be focused on in the WRP that would help address the input received from the
WATs. They also determined what should be recommended for future analysis. The following
parameters were recommended to be focused on in the WRP:
1) Bacteria/Public health - concentrate on determining unknown or unidentified sources,
failing sanitary sewer infrastructure and illicit connections, and achieving reductions and
compliance with water quality standards in warm weather months
2) Habitat/aesthetics - concrete channels and enclosed channels are poor for aquatic life and
for downstream hydrology; however, flooding considerations must be taken into account.
See Section 3.3 above for a discussion of the importance of considering aesthetics and the
indirect impact of aesthetics on the river‟s water quality and habitat. The restoration of
watersheds should include buffers, if possible, and consider the following parameters:
Chloride (harmful to aquatic life)
TSS
Sediment
DO/BOD

3-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Water temperature
Trash - defined as pet litter, waterfowl impacts, and refuse – with the
understanding that there is some overlap with other pollutants
Flow/flood impacts
3) Nutrients (Phosphorus) - While there do not appear to be many problems with algal
growth within the watershed, phosphorus has been identified as an issue along the
nearshore area of Lake Michigan.
The management strategies also consider nitrogen, copper, legacy pollutants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs). However, these pollutants are not a primary focus for the WRP
and should be addressed in future studies.
The use of real-time data was stressed as an important implementation tool. The USGS and
MMSD have installed monitoring facilities at select locations along the Kinnickinnic River.
These facilities provide water quality, temperature, and flow data to resource managers on a realtime basis. The availability of real-time data facilitates an improved understanding of stream
parameters under varied conditions. The USGS posts real-time monitoring data for Wisconsin at
the following website:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/current/?type=quality.
3.3.3 Habitat Considerations
Preliminary water pollution goals from the RWQMPU did not directly address habitat
improvement. However, the RWQMPU did recommend restoration of prairies and wetlands and
the establishment or expansion of riparian buffers.
3.4

Education and Outreach

A strong information and education component enhances public understanding of both watershed
planning and the project and encourages early and continued participation. Efforts include work
by SEWRPC, MMSD, SWWT, and others.
3.4.1 Internet
Online resources throughout the region include web pages launched and maintained by
SEWRPC, MMSD, SWWT, USGS, and others.
The SEWRPC maintains a web page for the RWQMPU (http://sewrpc.org/waterqualityplan/)
that documents the plan update process consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency‟s (USEPA‟s) watershed planning process. Topics documented include an overview
section, planning background, the current effort, public involvement, study meetings, advisory
committees, final plan summary, plan chapters, environmental corridors, yard care, related fact

3-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

sheets, links, and contact information. The final RWQMPU report and the companion technical
report are available on the web site.4,5 The website includes opportunities to contact staff.
The MMSD website for the 2020 Facilities Plan planning process was used intensively by
committees, citizens, and stakeholders and afforded the opportunity to comment on documents as
they were drafted. The MMSD continues to maintain the project website at
http://www.mmsd.com/wqi/. The site includes background on the project, a record of committee
activities, information about watersheds, presentations, publications, links, and contact
information.
In the spring of 2009, the MMSD launched an online tool called H2O Info that tracks water
quality indicators on a real-time basis. On this interactive site, users can click on a monitoring
location on a map and view data that are virtually real time and chart data over time. The
MMSD collects data with remote sensors and transmits it in cooperation with the USGS and then
posts the data to the H2O Info website. Water quality variables tracked include conductivity,
DO, turbidity, water temperature, flow (discharge), and stage. Precipitation data are also
available from several precipitation monitoring stations.
The SWWT website (http://www.swwtwater.org/) documents the formation of the group, posts
meeting information, and provides technical information. It includes a calendar of events,
publications, project listings, and lists committee members and activities. The MMSD hosts an
E-forum, accessible through the SWWT website, which is a tool designed to enable stakeholders
to participate in online discussions. The E-forum (http://www.swwtwater.org/swwtforum/) may
be used by all committee members to share information, discuss concepts, and comment on draft
documents, such as the WRP, as they are developed.
3.4.2 Watershed Booklets
As a precursor to the WAT meetings, the MMSD produced a booklet about each watershed that
included information about the status of the water quality within the watershed, the geography of
the watershed, and information about what local governments, the MMSD, and others are doing
to improve water quality. These booklets also outlined additional actions that individuals and
groups could do to further advance improvements to water quality.
3.4.3 Annual Conference
The annual Clean Rivers Clean Lakes conference is attended by hundreds of people dedicated to
improving the region‟s water quality. Originally convened by the MMSD, SEWRPC and others
as part of the Water Quality Initiative, 2009 marks its 6th year. The event draws people involved
in many aspects of water resource management and protection including scientists, regulators,
planners, elected officials, engineers, developers, environmentalists, and community activists.

4

SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning
Report No. 50 (December 5, 2007)
5
SEWRPC, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Technical
Report No. 39 (November 2007)

3-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

3.4.4 Other Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Education and Outreach
Initiatives
The SWWT education and outreach materials and tools can be used by municipalities and
counties throughout the watersheds. This ultimately may include an information and education
curriculum for elected officials as well as a communication plan. Print or electronic publications
may include an annual magazine, periodic newsletters, and special topic newsletters focusing on
critical habitat and WAT efforts and results. Ultimately, SWWT envisions development of an
annual water-quality report card for all the watersheds, based on agreed-upon parameters and
measured data.

3-15

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A

Name
Rebecca Abraham
Jen Adams
Sharon Adams
David Ahern
Matt Aho
Todd Ambs
Fay Amerson
Eric Anderson
Pehr Anderson
Kathryn Anderson
Kris Andrews
Else Ankel
Martin Aquino
Bette Arey
Lori Artiomow
Steve Atwell
Richard Badger
Karen Baker Mathu
Dana Baldwin
Lyle Balistreri
Brenda Bantz
Scott Baran
Richard Barloga
Thomas Barrett
Alan Barrows
Timothy Bate
Fran Beach
Jill Bedford
Matthew Bednarski
Barbara Behlke
Peter Beitzel
Solomon Bekele
Randy Belanger
John Bennett
Bernadette Berdes
Belle Bergner
Kristina Betzold
Tony Beyer
Bob Biebel
John Bielinski
Greg Bird
Tim Birkel
Paul Boersma
Steve Boettcher

Affiliation
River Revitalization Foundation
Milwaukee Water Works
Walnut Way Conservation Corporation
Ahern Engineering Co.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water
Walworth County
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Silicon Pastures
UW-Extension
UW System Administration
Urban Ecology Center
City of Milwaukee
Kettle Moraine Land Trust
Discovery World
Office of State Senator Lena Taylor
Bay Ridge Consulting
Great Lakes Water Institute
Milwaukee Building Trades Council
City of Milwaukee - Environmental Services
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Mayor, City of Milwaukee
Waukesha County
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Drumlin Area Land Trust
Bonestroo
Behlke Consulting, Inc.
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc
City of Franklin
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Village of Mount Pleasant
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Milwaukee Water Works
City of Cudahy
HNTB Corporation
Boettcher Media Group

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.]

Name
Curt Bolton
Doug Booth
Harvey Bootsma
Ted Bosch
Joe Boxhorn
Owen Boyle
Stephen Branca
Scott Brandmeier
Douglas Brandon
Todd Breiby
Todd Brennon
Steve Brick
Joe A. Brieske
Carrie Bristoll-Groll
Elda Brizuela
Gerry Broderick
John Broihahn
Lane Brostom
Lesley Brotkowski
Irene Brown
Jeff Browne
Ann Brummitt
Patricia Brust
Michelle Bryant
Susan Buchanan
Anthony Bunkelman
Tom Bunker
Joseph M. Burtch
Marsha Burzynski
Vince Bushell
Jim Buske
Leeann Butschlick
Carolyn Byrne
Michael Campbell
Fredy Canales
Bill Carity
Mike Carlson
Jason Carlson
John Carlson
Julie Carpenter
Alan Carter
Patrick G. Casey
Libby Cavanaugh
Teresa Caven
James V. Celano, III

Affiliation
City of Greenfield
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Great Lakes Water Institute
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Johnson Foundation
Village of Fox Point
Milwaukee Water Works
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Pier Wisconsin
The Joyce Foundation
Bonestroo
Stormwater Solutions Engineering, LLC
Conservationist/ Filmaker
Milwaukee County
TechStar
Cedarburg Science, LLC
Public Policy Forum
Milwaukee River Work Group
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Wisconsin State Senate
Tall Pines Conservancy
Caledonia Storm Sewer Utility District Commission
City of Racine
City of West Allis
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Brown Deer
Village of Shorewood
Village of Elm Grove
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Carity Land Corporation
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
City of Brookfield
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Village of West Milwaukee
City of Brookfield
Geneva Lake Conservancy
Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.]

Name
Rita Cestaric
Jeff Chase
Doug Cherkauer
Erik Christensen
Barbara Chudnow
Jerry Chudzik
Tom Churchill
Jim Ciha
Margaret Clark
Louise Clemency
Preston Cole
John Colletti
Lisa Conley
Nancy Counter
Michael Cudahy
Angela Curtes
Eddee Daniel
Jean Davidson
Lou Davit
Troy Deibert
Melinda Dejewski
Sara DeKok
Robert Dennik
Lynn Des Jardins
Jeanne DeSimone Sieger
Dennis Devitt
Sandy DeWalt
Matt Diebel
Carol Diggelman
Frank Dombrowski
Kae DonLevy
JoEllen Donovan
Mary Beth Drapp
Mary Beth Driscoll
James Drought
Carol Drury
Thomas Dunbar
Clare Dundon
Claus Dunkelberg
Mike DuPont
Tony Earl
Dave Eastman
Jon Edgren
Jeff Edstrom
Scott Edwards

Affiliation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Brookfield
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
South Shore Park Watch
Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates, Inc.
Milwaukee County Parks
Black & Veatch, Inc.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Town & Country Resource Conservation and Development
Corporation
First Weber Group Foundation, Inc.
The Endeavors Group, LLC
Yggdrasil Land Foundation
Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers

HNTB Corporation
City of St. Francis
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Executive Office Milwaukee County
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Medical College of Wisconsin Research Foundation
Caledonia Conservancy
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Milwaukee School of Engineering
We Energies
Pier Wisconsin
Bonestroo
Medical College of Wisconsin
Groundwork Milwaukee, Inc
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
Center for Resilient Cities
Town of Delafield Plan Commission
Milwaukee 7 Water Council
MWH Americas
Governor - Retired
City of Glendale
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
Geosyntec Consultants
Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC
Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Susan Eichelkraut
Mustafa Emir
Jim Engelhardt
Gail Epping Overholt
Russell C. Evans
Greg Failey
Fred Fairbanks
Craig Faucett
Mark Feider
Mary Feind
Robert L. Feind
Daniel Feinstein
Beth Fetterley
Steven A. Finch
Molly Flanagan
Jeffrey Foran
Jeff Fortin
Pamela Foster Felt
David Fowler
Nancy Frank
Ernst-Ulrich Franzen
Jim Fratrick
Krystal Freimark
Mike Friis
Jeri Gabrielson
Steve Gaffield
Steve Galarneau
Sharon Gayan
Danni Gendelman
Doran Gendelman
Ellen Gennrich
Jim Gennrich
Al Ghorbanpoor
Kimberly A Gleffe
Steven A. Godfrey
Pam Golanowski
Jessica Goldsberry
Willie Gonwa
Joe Gorecki
Dave Graczyk
Shawn Graff
Benjamin Gramling
Susan S. Greenfield
Tom Grisa
Laura Gronek

Affiliation
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bonestroo
Clark Dietz, Inc.
University of Wisconsin-Extension Basin Education Initiative
Waukesha County Environmental Action League
General Mitchell Airport
City of Oak Creek
City of Cudahy
Glendale Natural Areas Regreen Project

U.S. Geological Survey
Urban Ecology Center
HNTB Corporation
The Joyce Foundation
Midwest Center for Environmenatl Science
City of Oak Creek
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Association of State Floodplain Managers
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Racine County Planning & Development
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Office of Senator Russell D. Feingold
Montgomery Associates Resource Solutions, LLC
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Citizen, Environmentalist
Discovery World at Pier Wisconsin
Waukesha County Land Conservancy
Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
River Revitalization Foundation
Baxter & Woodman, Inc.
Marquette University
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Field Station
Symbiont Engineering
Milwaukee Water Works
U.S. Geological Survey
Ozaukee/Washington County Land Trust
Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
City of Brookfield

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

M.]

Name
Barry Grossman
Tim Grundl
David Grusznski
Kim Grveles
Dennis Grzezinski
Rob Guilbert
John Hacker
Bill Hafs

Affiliation
Foley & Lardner, LLP
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Conservation Fund
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Urban Ecology Center
Assurant Health Foundation

Mike Hahn
Carol Hale
Kevin Haley
Nathan Hanisko
Delene Hanson
Jill Hapner
Joyce Harms
Arthur Harrington
Gregg Harris
Rose Hass Leider
Chuck Haubrich
Wendy Hauser
Joel Hawkins
Joan Hawley
Ronald Hayward
Brian Heard
Thomas Hefty
Ronald Heinritz
William Hendee
Patrick Henderson
Jessie L. Henderson
Nicole Hewitt
Patricia Hidson
Jaren Hiller
Nathan Hinch
Tom Hoffman
Norman Holman
William Hoppe
Brian Hornickle
Jeanne Hossenlopp
Will Hoyer
Randy Hoyt
Jessica Hrobar
Stacy Hron
Peter Hughes
Brett Hulsey
John Idzikowski

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Global Green Cross
Milwaukee County Parks
Milwaukee Water Works
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Washington County
Veolia Water, LLC
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.
Milwaukee Water Works
Ozaukee County Board
Kenosha/Racine Land Trust
Greater Milwaukee Committee
Village of Bayside
Superior Engineering, LLC
Village of West Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
Village of Thiensville
Medical College of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor - Wisconsin
R.A. Smith National, Inc.
City of New Berlin

Brown County Land Conservation Dept.

AECOM
Sheaffer International
Village of Menomonee Falls
Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research & Education
City of Mequon
Village of Menomonee Falls
Marquette University
Clean Wisconsin
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
The Conservation Fund
Miller Engineers & Scientists
U.S. Geological Survey
Better Environmental Solutions

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.]

Names
Nader Jaber
Anthony Jackson
Jeffrey J. Jacobson
Steve Jacquart
Christopher Jaekels
Aaron Jahncke
Jeramey Jannene
John Jansen
Thomas Jansen
Stanley Jaskolski
Debra Jensen
Jason Jentzsch
Jennifer Johanson
Timothy John
Rolf Johnson
Arlyn Johnson
Annie Jones
Warren Jones
Harald Jordahl
Robert Karnauskas
Brian Kasprzyk
Jim Keegan
Steve Keith
Greg Kessler
Lynn Ketterhagen
Kevin Kimmes
Darcy Kind
Kathleen King
John Kirchgeorg
Rebecca Klaper
Michele Klappa-Sullivan
Dave Klemer
Scott Kloskowski
Val Klump
Russell Knetzger
Tom Koepp
Peg Kohring
Brandon Koltz
James Koneazny
Gary Korb
Nik Kovac
Greg Kowalski
Laura Kracum
Paul Krajniak
Kris Krause

Affiliation
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Milwaukee Water Works
Wisconsin State Fair Park
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Whitefish Bay
UrbanMilwaukee.com
Ruekert-Mielke, Inc.
We Energies
Marquette University
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
EN2 Solutions, LLC
Alverno College
Agua Media & Exhibit International
Village of Menomonee Falls
Kenosha County University of Wisconsin-Extension
City of Milwaukee Housing Authority
Wisconsin Department of Administration
BL3 Strategies, LLC
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Milwaukee County Park System
Milwaukee County Department of Public Works
City of New Berlin
Geneva Lake Conservancy
Propex, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Life Corporation
Great Lakes Water Institute
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Muskego
Great Lakes Water Institute
City & Town Plans
Ruekert & Mielke, Inc.
The Conservation Fund
Symbiont
University of Wisconsin Extension / Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commisison
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
West Wisconsin Land Trust
Discovery World
WE Energies
Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Timothy Kriewall
William Krill
Raymond Krueger
Andrew Kurth
Andy LaFond
John Lammers
Mary Lou Lamonda
Rebecca Lane
Dan Lau
Carolynn Leaman
Cora Lee-Palmer
John Lehman
Brian Lennie
Jim Leonhart
Olivier Leupin
Carrie Lewis
Howard Lewis
Sally Lewis
Michael Lewis
Jin Li
Lin Li
Jon Lindert
Jim Lindhorst
Scott Linssen
David Linz
Christopher Litzau
Mark Lloyd
Paul Lohmiller
Les Lovejoy
Michael Luba
Dan Ludwig
Jim Luedeke
Robert J. Lui
Martha Lunz
William Lynch
Alan Madry
Michael Maierle
Melissa Malott
Pat Marchese
Rocky Marcoux
Mike Marek
Janette Marsh
Joel Marshall
Fran Martin
Peter Martin

Affiliation
Wisconsin Lutheran College
Brown and Caldwell
River Revitalization Foundation
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Thiensville

City of Oak Creek
CDM
Celadon, LLC
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Wisconsin State Senate
Bonestroo
WBMDA
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Milwaukee Waterworks

City of West Allis Engineering Dept.
University of Wisconsin - Milwakee, Civil Eng & Mechanics
Milwaukee Water Works
Strand Associates, Inc.
City of St. Francis
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Entrepreneur Network
Milwaukee Community Service Corps
City of Mequon
Bonestroo
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Village of Germantown
Wausau Concrete Company
Village of Caledonia
Preserve Our Parks
Marquette University
ARCADIS
Clean Wisconsin
Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises
Commissioner of City Development Milwaukee
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
HNTB Corporation
Caledonia Conservancy

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Michael Martin
Michelle Mason
Jerald Mast
Scott Mathie
Jeff Maxted
Peter McAvoy
Jeanne McCabe
Wendy McCalvy
Stephen McCarthy
John McCarthy
Gail McCarver
Gloria McCutcheon
Stephen McGowan
Margaret McGuire
Sandra McLellan
Gerard McMullen
Peter McMullen
James McNelly
Steve Mech
Richard Meeusen
G. Tracy Mehan
Hardy Meihsner
Mary Mertes
Joe Mestnick
Ezra Meyer
Tanya Meyer
Todd K. Michaels
William J. Mielke
Mark Mittag
Michael J. Mnichowicz
Robert Monnat
Todd Montgomery
Rob Montgomery
Jane Moore
Sarah Moore
William Moore
Rose Morgan
Kate Morgan
Michael Morgan
Ed Morse
Ron Romeis
James Muller
Kathy Mulvey
Lynn Muza
Emad Nadi

Affiliation
Village of Hales Corners
River Revitalization Foundation
Carthage College
Metropolitan Builders Association
16th Street Community Health Center
Blood Research Institute
Village of Caledonia
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer, & Associates, Inc.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Great Lakes Water Institute
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
CSA Commercial
Badger Meter, Inc.
GeoDecisions
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Clean Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Village of Greendale
Ruekert Mielke, Inc.
CH2M-Hill
Mandel Group, Inc.
Friends of Lakeshore Nature Preserve
Montgomery Associates Resources Solutions, LLC
Greater Milwaukee Foundation
City of New Berlin
EMCS, Inc.
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Wisconsin Rural Water Association
City of Franklin
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Caledonia Conservancy
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name

Dan Naze
James Ndon
Doug Neilson
Larry Neitzel
John Nelson
Dan Nelson, Jr.
Karen Nenahlo
Jeffrey S. Nettesheim
Justin New
Bob Newell
Gene Neyhart
Mark Nicolini
Peter Nilles
Gerald Novotny
Tom Nowakowski
Jennifer Oechsner
Lois O'Keefe
Jon Olander
Dale Olen
Brian Olson
Eyad Omari
Mike Oneby
Jill Organ
Kimberly Oriel Siemens
Jason Otto
Abbas Ourmazd
Aaron Owens
Mary Panzer
Chuck Pape
Mary Patzlaff
Eric Paulsen
Andy Pederson
Steve Percy
David Petering
Gerald Petersen
Mindy Petersen
Jane Peterson
Dan Piekarski
Nate Piotrowski
Ginny Plumeau
Todd Polacek
Jeff Polenske
Stephen Poloncsik
Ryan Porter
Lisa Quezada

Affiliation
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee Water Works
VISIT Milwaukee
Village of Brown Deer
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc
City of Milwaukee
Village of Menomonee Falls
JFNew
City of St. Francis
Milwaukee Community Sailing Center
City of Milwaukee
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin State Senate
Office of Congresswoman Gwen Moore
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Sierra Club
Quad/Graphics, Inc.
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
MWH Americas
Milwaukee County
CDM
Milwaukee Water Works
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Greater Milwaukee Committee
Greater Milwaukee Committee
Village of Bayside
Director, UWM Center for Urban Initiatives & Research
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Kettle Moraine Land Trust
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Milwaukee Water Works
Village of Brown Deer
Cedarburg Science
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
City of Milwaukee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Miller Brewing

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Ramsey Radakovich
Mike Raimonde
Tom Ratzki
Tina Reese
Dave Reid
Joel Reinders
Russ Reinsma
Tony Remsen
Gerard Rewolinski
Tim Rhode
Jon Richards
Mayor Al Richards
Ervin Riley
Robert Brunner
Susan Robertson
Diane Robertson
Christine Rodriguez
Len Roecker
Mark Rosolek
Perry Rossa
Debby Roszak
Rosalind Rouse
James Rowen
Carl Rowlands
Scott Royer
Patrick Ruel
Jennifer A. Runquist
Brian Russart
Mike Ruzicka
Rachel Sabre
Karen Sands
Carlos Santiago
Bill Sasse
Melissa Scanlon
Bonnie Schalow
Erick Schambarger
Karen Schapiro
Penny Scheueman
Kendra Schielke
John Schmid
Dean Schmidtke
Steve Schueller
Jon Schulman
Kristin Schultheis
Randy Schumacher

Milwaukee County Parks
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Black & Veatch, Inc.
Symbiont
UrbanMilwaukee.com

Affiliation

Super Steel Corporation
Great Lakes Water Institute
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
Village of Butler
State Representative
City of St. Francis
Super Steel Corporation
Commissioner
Village of Fox Point
Village of Thiensville
Pier Wisconsin
Villages of Greendale and West Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Milwaukee Waterworks
Consultant
TDI Associates
Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC
League of Women Voters - Milwaukee County
Milwaukee County Parks
Metropolitan Association of Realtors
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Earth Tech
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Village of Mount Pleasant
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Uihlein Foundation
City of Milwaukee
Midwest Environmental Advocates
WE Energies
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Milwaukee Water Works
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Eric Schumann
Heather Schwar
Michael Schwar
John Scripp
Tom Sear
Jane Segerdahl
Marsha Sehler
Kevin Shafer
Peter Shedivy
John Siepmann
Batya Silva
Tom Simasko
Darin Simpkins
David Simpson
David Simpson
Stephanie Sklba
Rick Smith
Guy Smith
Vacky Smucker
Rick Sokol
Sara Spence
Elizabeth Stager
Chris Stamborski
Mark Stamm
Gloria Stearns
Kris Stepenuck
Tom Still
Rudi Strickler
Michael Strigel
David L. Stroik
Andrew Struck
Duane Struemer
Bill Strutz
Sean Sullivan
Michael J. Sullivan
Jim Surfus
Chris Svoboda
Peter Swenson
Michael S. Switzenbaum
Benjamin Sykes
R.C. Tally
Julia Taylor
Lena Taylor
Tom Taylor
Audrey Templeton

Affiliation
Caledonia Conservancy
HNTB Corporation
HNTB Corporation
Whyte, Hirschboeck, Dudek S.C.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
Uihlein/Wilson Architects
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
HNTB Corporation
Siepmann Realty Corporation
University of Wisconsin-Extension
US Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Brookfield
City of Muskego
Gateway Technical College
RA Smith & Associates
Milwaukee County Parks
City of Greenfield
Representative Moore’s Office
The Nature Conservancy
Village of Caledonia

UW- Madison; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Technology Council
Great Lakes Water Institute
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Ozaukee County - Planning & Parks
Milwaukee Water Works
Insinkerator
Ruekert & Mielke, Inc.
City of Oak Creek
Miller Brewing Company
Pier Milwaukee Yacht Storage
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Marquette University
Foley & Lardner, LLP
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Greater Milwaukee Com
Wisconsin State Senate
City of Franklin
Miller Brewing Company

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Jim TeSelle
Sara Teske
Scott Thistle
Brian Thompson
Jeffrey Thornton
Tim Thur
Thomas Tollaksen
Angela Tornes
Steve Traudt
John Treffert
Dan Treloar
Kathy Trentadue
Casey Twanow
Mark Uecker
Michael Underwood
Stuart Utley
Kyle Vander Coer
Saji Villoth
Aina Vilumsons
Christopher Vitrano
Don Volkert
Yash Wadhwa
Thomas Wagner
Magdelene Wagner
J. P. Walker
Patrick Walsh
Liz Walsh
Rodney Walter
Brenna Wanous
Andrea Ward
Chuck Ward
Glen Warren
Sheldon Wasserman
William T. Wehrley
Joseph Weirich
JoAnn Weishan
David Weiss
Lyman Welch
Adrian Wencka
Sammis White
Yolanda White
Marc White
Rachel Wilberding
Kristen Wilhelm
Sara Wilson

Affiliation
Wisconsin Great Lakes Coalition
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Brookstone Homes, Inc.
Tech Star
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
City of Milwaukee
Village of River Hills
National Park Service - Midwest Region
Tall Pines Conservancy
Village of Thiensville
Kenosha County
Caledonia Conservancy
Great Lakes Water Institute
Village of Greendale
Velocity Systems
City of South Milwaukee
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Procurement Institute
Nelson Schmidt
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Strand Associates, Inc.
Kapur & Associates, Inc.
City of Pewaukee
City of New Berlin
Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation
Gathering Waters Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy
Biodiversity Project
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Milwaukee County Park System
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State Representative
City of Wauwatosa
Argosy Foundation
Village of Germantown
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Milwaukee Water Works
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Riveredge Nature Center
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Franklin
Mayes Wilson & Associates, LLC
Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

Name
Dennis Winters
Christina Wistrom
Tom Wiza
Sarah Wright
Richard Yahr
Simon Yao
Zhi Biao Yin
Zafar Yousuf
Christine Zapf
Josh Zepnick
Corey Zetts
Kate Ziino
Robert Zimmerman
Brian Zimmerman
Tim Zimmerman
Richard Zinuticz
Dan Zitomer
Nancy Zolidis
Paul Zovic

Affiliation
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
City of Cedarburg
The Johnson Foundation
Milwaukee Water Works
Milwaukee Water Works
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Sierra Club
Wisconsin State Assembly
Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc.
HNTB Corporation
Kohler Company
Milwaukee County Park System
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee Water Works
Marquette University
Montgomery Associates, Resources Solutions, LLC
Shaw Environmental

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 3B

Name
Matt Aho
Ryan Amtmann
Mary Anderson
Martin Aquino
Richard Badger
Jessi Balcom
Brenda Bantz
Richard Barlosa
Tim Bate
Kathy Bates
Barbara Behlke
Bernadette Berdes
Gregory F. Bird
Paul Boersma
Curt Bolton
Todd Breiby
Katherine Brenner
Carrie Bristoll-Groll
Marsha Burzynski
Phil Bzdusek
Gary Casper
Theresa Caven
Jerome Chudzik
David Ciepluch
Chris Clayton
Kathy DeCarol
Troy Deibert
Gerald DeMers
Carol Diggelman
Steve Djur
Kae DonLevy
Mary Beth Driscoll
Greg Failey
Beth Fetterley
Sean Foltz
Ernst-Ulrich Franzen
Don Gallo
Sharon L. Gayan
Joan Giuliani
Kimberly Gleffe
Ben Gramling

Affiliation
Groundworks MKE
Ruekert/Mielke
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee
Wisconsin State Senator Taylor
Village of Elm Grove

MMSD
MATC
Behlke Consulting
MMSD
Black and Veatch
City of Greenfield
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

W DNR

City of Brookfield
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Associates, Inc
River Alliance
HNTB

Groundworks MKE
Urban Ecology Center
American Rivers
MKE Journal Sentinel
WI DNR
Miller-Coors Corp.
River Revitalization Fdn.
16th St. Community Health Center

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

MO/DY/YR

[FILE NMNG

Lori Grant
Nancy Greifenhagen
Tom Grisa
David Grusznski
Dennis Grzezinski
Danelle Haake
John Hacker
Mike Hahn
Jessie Henderson
Nicole Hewitt
Mary Holleback
Andy Holschbach
Peter Hughes
Shermin Hughes
Nader Jaber
Steve Jacquart
Cindy Janusz
Jason Jentzsch
Jennifer Johanson
Tim John
Karen M. Johnson
Lauren Justus
Katrina Kazik
Steve Keith
Greg Kessler
Bruce Keyes
Terry Kinis
Ryan Kloth
Peg Kohring
Laura Kracum
Kevin Kratt
Bill Krill
Shirley Krug
Andrew Kunth
Michelle Lenski
Paul Lohmiller
Mike Maierle
Michael Maki
Doris Mattke
Peter McAvoy
John McCarthy
Judy Mead

River Alliance
Village of Menomonee Falls
City of Brookfield
MMSD
TN and Associates, Inc.
SEWRPC
Village of Butler/West Milwaukee
City of New Berlin
RiverEdge Nature Center
Ozaukee County
USGS
State Government
City of Milwaukee
MMSD
Engineering Solutions
Alverno College

Village of Germantown
Milwaukee County
City of New Berlin
Foley & Lardner

Conservation Fund
Tetra Tech
City of Milwaukee
River Revitalization Fdn.
MPS
City of Milwaukee
City of Wauwatosa
MPS
16 St. Community Health Center

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

.]

Ezra Meyer
Peter Milles
Mark Mittag
Kate Morgan
Cheryl Nenn
Jeff Nettesheim
Bill Nimke
Lois O'Keefe
Gail Overholt
Harry Parrott
Ginny Plumeau
Lisa Quezada
Mike Raimonde
Russ Reinsma
Dawn Riegel
Perry Rossa
Jennifer Runquist
Brian Russart
Karen Sands
Karen Sands
Melissa Scanlan
Nick Schmal
Cathy Schwalbach
Tom Sear
Leslie Silletti
Laura Smith
Sean Sulllivan
Katie Swartz
Ben Sykes
Angie Tornes
J. Treffert
Stacey Tushaus
Saji Villoth
Marty Weigel
Nancy Welch
Terry Witkowski
Sarah Wright
Steven Wurster
Richard A. Yahr
Langley

Clean Wisconsin
CH2MHill
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Village of Menomonee Falls
Inland Seas School of Expeditionary Learning
UWEX
Cedarburg Science
Miller-Coors Corp.
AECOM

Milwaukee County
MMSD
AECOM/Consultant Team
Midwest Environmental Advocates
City of New Berlin
City of Milwaukee
Cedarburg Science
American Rivers
Foley and Lardner
National Park Service

City of Wauwatosa
City of Milwaukee
Johnson Foundation

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - KK
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Kinnickinnic River WRP

L

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission‟s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
(RWQMPU) and includes fishery, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data gathered since the
completion of that plan up to the year 2009. In some cases, the habitat discussion focuses on the
watershed as a whole and does not discuss each element of habitat for each assessment point
area. The second half of the chapter presents water quality and pollutant loading within the
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.
As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), the RWQMPU was the
starting point and set the framework for this plan – it is not intended to be the final level of
restoration for the watershed. The goals of the RWQMPU, and consequently the WRP, were not
set to meet water quality standards in all locations of the watershed 365 days per year.
Therefore, the water quality results shown in this chapter, which are based on the recommended
plan from the RWQMPU, do not all meet water quality standards. However, achieving the goals
will significantly reduce the annual pollutant loads and concentrations in the streams and
improve habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the
adaptive watershed management approach is implemented that will continue to improve water
quality.
4.2

Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed

Note: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 consist of excerpts from SEWRPC‟s Memorandum Report 194
Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River
Watersheds: 2000 – 2009. In some cases, SEWRPC‟s material has been modified or rearranged
to highlight pertinent aspects of the Kinnickinnic River watershed and to fit within the context of
this WRP. Memorandum Report 194 is included in Appendix 4A.
Background
Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into stream systems by one of two pathways: either
directly flowing overland as surface water runoff into streams or infiltrating into the soil surface
and eventually flowing underground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally
flow only during the wet season or large rainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called
perennial streams and are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry periods. The surface
water drainage system contains 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.

4-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Kinnickinnic River‟s 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.

4-2

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.

FIGURE 4-1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
WATERSHED
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

To better understand the Kinnickinnic River watershed and the factors that shape its stream
conditions, it is important to understand the effects of both spatial and temporal scales.
Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance while
river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins, are least susceptible. However, large
disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. Similarly, on a temporal
scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short term. However,
if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.1 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream
channelization and the construction of concrete-linings, have resulted in longer term impacts
throughout the 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;
limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing, and aesthetics; and may
actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPC‟s
Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the

1

G.J. Niemi and others, “An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems From Disturbance,”
Journal of Environmental Management (Volume 14, pages 571-587, 1990)
2
Poff, R. and C. Threinen, Surface Water Resources of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Conservation Department,
Madison, Wisconsin (1964)
3
Milwaukee River Estuary Area of Concern (AOC), http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/milwaukee.html#pagetop

4-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. 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 such urbanization in the
absence of planning 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 following:
Creation of large areas of connected impervious surfaces
Lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of
runoff
Proximity of development to waterbodies
Loss of natural areas
Inadequate construction erosion controls.
These factors increase the potential for the occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity
effects associated with urbanization. Industrial and commercial land uses have significantly
more impervious area than residential land uses. Furthermore, smaller residential lots create
more impervious surfaces than larger residential lots. TABLE 4-1 lists the approximate amount
of impervious surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial, and governmental and
institutional development.

4-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
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

*Higher percentages of impervious surface increases the potential for negative
water quality/quantity effects

Although commercial and industrial developments are characterized by a 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% less than cropland and 24% 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 mitigating measures, urbanization impacts the watershed, not only by altering the ratio between
stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, but also through the changing of stream hydrology.
In general, increased 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

4-6

Note: The discharge curve is higher and steeper for urban streams
The words ‘before’ and ‘after’ refer to before and after urbanization
Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.

FIGURE 4-2
HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON – URBAN
AND RURAL STREAMS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In addition, because impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow is
available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall,
baseflow levels are often reduced in urban streams.5 This has been observed 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. This directly
affects water quality and pollutant loading within the Kinnickinnic River watershed, discussed
on page 4-22.
Biological
Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and
hydrological variables. Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species
abundance and distributions within aquatic systems; however, such interactions are beyond the
scope of this report and are not considered further in this document. Abiotic factors such as
stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities (fishes,
invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat quality.
For example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high quality
habitat. It is important to note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within a
watershed as well as to land use directly adjacent to the stream bank. Consequently, watershed
size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffer width are critical elements
necessary in defining habitat quality.
4.3

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% concrete-lining and 30% 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 historical longitudinal profiles indicates that up to 4 to 5 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
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)

4-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

and exposing the streambank and streambed to extremely high velocities and shear stress; and
steep slopes.
This is consistent with extensive areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian
buffers less than 75 feet in width. More than 70% 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% of the stream within assessment point area KK-3 and 23% 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 watershed‟s highly urbanized landscape. See
Appendix 4A for SEWRPC‟s Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and
Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This
memo provides additional information on buffer widths and plant communites including detailed
mapping of these features within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. For more information on
natural areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed, see the following reports:
A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan
for Southeastern Wisconsin7
A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District8
A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County9
Conservation Plan Technical Report10
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
7

SEWRPC, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin, Planning Report No. 42 (September 1997)
8
SEWRPC, A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Memorandum Report
No. 152 (December 2002)
9
SEWRPC, A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County, Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132
(November 1991)
10
MMSD, Conservation Plan Technical Report (October 2001)

4-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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. In addition to outfall
design and construction, the location of the outfall is an important consideration. An outfall that
discharges directly to a waterbody conveys stormwater past the riparian buffer. These conditions
preclude any opportunity for the riparian buffer to filter or treat stormwater. Ideally, outfalls
would discharge directly into the riparian buffer area which would allow some infiltration and
filtration of the stormwater within the buffer area. Outfall pipes can be retrofit or daylighted to
shift the outfall discharge point to the riparian buffer; note that the riparian buffer may need to be
modified in the new discharge area to prevent erosion. 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 SEWRPC‟s Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and
Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This
memo provides additional information on outfall pipes, point sources and monitoring sites
including detailed mapping of these features of the Kinnickinnic River watershed.

4-10

Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.

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

Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.

TABLE 4-2, Page 2 of 2
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
CONDITIONS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
[]

2utfall located
within riparian buffer
Rocklined area downstream
of outfall to increase infiltration
and reduce erosion

9HJHWDWHG area to
increase infiltration

Reconnected floodplain /
([SDQGHG riparian buffer

Erosion control fabric
2utfall located
within riparian buffer

Natural stone
streambank

Underwood Creek Stream Restoration Project
Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No.194.

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

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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.11 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.12
Hydrology plays an important role. As noted above, urbanization increases impervious surfaces,
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% 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 were used 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
urbanization 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, SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU summarized
that the biological community in the Kinnickinnic River watershed is limited primarily due to the
following:
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

11

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)
12
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. [Internet]; available from http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/ibihist.html.

4-14

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.

FIGURE 4-4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOTA
AND URBANIZATION
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.

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

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.

TABLE 4-3

AGGREGATED BIOASSESSMENT
RESULTS
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Urban land uses tend to increase impervious surfaces which affect stream hydrology and impact
water quality. Periodic stormwater pollutant loads result in significant pollutant loading to area
waterbodies. Most of the water quality impacts are associated with the „first flush‟ of rainfall or
snowmelt events (wet weather event). The first flush carries most of the pollutants that have
accumulated on impervious surfaces since the preceding wet weather event. Following the first
flush, subsequent runoff is referred to as „extended runoff‟; this runoff tends to transport less
pollution. In general, the first flush occurs during the first 30 minutes of a wet weather event and
the rest of the wet weather event produces extended runoff. Recent analyses compared the
concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) among the following
sources:
First flush stormwater
CSO
SSO
Extended runoff
The analysis included water quality data that was gathered from 1990 to 2003, so it included
both pre-tunnel and post-tunnel data. The analysis of TP within first flush stormwater indicates
that TP concentrations are comparable to those found in CSOs, but tend to present in lower
concentrations relative to SSOs. The concentration of TP within extended runoff is generally
lower than those within the CSO and the first flush. The analysis of TSS within first flush
stormwater indicates that TSS concentrations are generally higher than TSS concentrations found
in CSOs, SSOs, and extended runoff. These analyses indicate that nonpoint source pollution
from the first flush of wet weather events contribute to TP and TSS loads and impact water
quality.
Chlorides from deicing activities also affect water quality. Similarly to TP and TSS, chlorides are
transported to area waterbodies during the first flush of wet weather events. This is demonstrated
with recent water quality monitoring and analysis in the Menomonee River watershed. Chloride
concentrations in the Menomonee River (at 70th Street) are correlated with winter and wet
weather events. As expected, the measured chloride concentrations tend to be highest during the
winter months when salt is applied to roadways within the Menomonee River watershed. Similar
relationships among season, wet weather and in-stream chloride concentrations are expected
within the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
With respect to item 3 on page 4-14 (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and
concrete linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) that was
recently restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). 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.

4-18

Straight channel

Concrete lining

Re-connected
floodplain
Erosion control
fabric

Natural meandering
channel

Stabilized bank
Large boulders
provide resting
areas and slope
stability

Gravel substrate

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.

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

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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, and 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.13 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 SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU, 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 farther 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 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 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 are being collected by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR), and volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeeper‟s Citizen Based Monitoring
program. The MMSD continues to conduct bi-monthly physical and chemical sampling and
analysis at six mainstem and two 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 its associated tributaries.

13

T.M. Slawski, and others, “Effects of low-head dams, urbanization, and tributary spatial position on fish
assemblage structure within a Midwest stream,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management (2008)

4-20

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.

TABLE 4-4
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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, the MMSD and
USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and estimating other real-time
concentrations of selected water quality constituents. Real-time sensors at each location are
measuring specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity along with
stream flow and stage. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms that
transmit data in parallel to the MMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on
a real-time basis allows for water resources management decisions and provides information for
citizens.
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 area‟s 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

o
o

The simulated water quality resulting from the model that has been validated
considering actual water quality data through calendar year 2007
Land use as of 2000
Land use pollutant loading rates that were initially based on the source loading
and management model (SLAMM) and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)
models with some adjustments made to calibrate the water quality model

To support the development of this watershed restoration plan (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 use data, maps, figures, and
tables to present a comprehensive picture of the Baseline conditions within each assessment
point area in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
The pollutant loading is presented by nonpoint sources and point sources (industrial
discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
The loading for nonpoint sources is further refined to estimate the delivered loads by

4-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 SEWRPC RWQMPU for
Year 2020.

o

Complete implementation of the RWQMPU‟s recommended actions for the
Recommended Plan, which includes full implementation of Wis. Admin. Code
Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management and implementation of many
other actions as detailed in the RWQMPU. See Chapter 6 for a list and brief
description of RWQMPU recommendations that are included in this WRP. For
more detail and information, see Chapter X of 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 that present the unit loads per acre for the assessment point areas are
presented in Appendix 4D. The data and analysis included in these appendices can serve as tools
during the implementation of actions that are intended to address focus areas in the Kinnickinnic
River watershed.

4-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-5
TOTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS LOADS

1

TP

Baseline Nonpoint
2
3
TSS
BOD

4

Baseline Point
TSS
BOD

Baseline Total
TSS
BOD

FC

TP

FC

TP

pounds

tons

pounds

billion counts

pounds

tons

pounds

billion counts

pounds

tons

pounds

billion counts

625
894
1,204
1,846
1,006
599
444
1,727
541

141.94
278.92
280.35
441.90
321.75
157.12
108.49
444.27
128.21

16,935
30,856
33,547
122,152
44,480
16,752
12,119
49,047
15,349

247,097
327,952
469,449
458,079
361,867
202,881
145,036
583,597
185,811

0
458
1
335
442
0
0
0
1,155

0.01
1.59
0.03
3.57
0.40
0
0
0
28.00

7
5,451
13
5,838
1,124
0
0
0
13,951

517
2,068
1,034
16,143
0
0
0
0
1,021,327

626
1,352
1,205
2,181
1,448
599
444
1,727
1,696

141.95
280.51
280.38
445.47
322.15
157.12
108.49
444.27
156.21

16,942
36,307
33,560
127,990
45,604
16,752
12,119
49,047
29,300

247,614
330,020
470,483
474,222
361,867
202,881
145,036
583,597
1,207,138

KK-10
1,065
293.19
31,886
Notes:
1
TP = Total phosphorus
2
TSS = Total suspended solids
3
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
4
FC = Fecal coliform

376,749

434

19.62

8,968

491,755

1,499

312.81

40,854

868,504

KK-1
KK-2
KK-3
KK-4
KK-5
KK-6
KK-7
KK-8
KK-9

4-24

FC

Watershed Restoration Plan
4.5

Kinnickinnic River

Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds)

The Kinnickinnic River contains 10 assessment point areas. These areas are presented on Figure
4-7.
4.5.1

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 ¼ 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 57th Street. West of 57th 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 60th 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, flows through a short section of concrete-lined channel, and then enters the
Kinnickinnic River Parkway. At this point, the creek enters the South 43rd Street Ditch
assessment point area (KK-2), see page 4-41. For more information on Lyons Park Creek or
other subwatersheds within the Kinnickinnic River, see SEWRPC‟s 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% 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%) and low-density residential
(5%) (these are defined in the following table). Local roads and arterial streets contribute to
transportation, which makes up approximately 30% of the total land use. Recreation, natural
areas, and open space along with institutional, governmental, and commercial land uses compose
the remaining 11%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water
quality data, approximately 31% 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).

4-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-6
LAND USE IN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.1

4.72%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-26

94

59

59
181
59

Na tio

100

Village of
WEST MILWAU KEE

A ve
nal

794

Bur nha m St

894

Bur nha m St

it
lo
Be

e
om

A

ve

38
13 th St

KK-2

e
Av

27 th St

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
WE
ES
S TT A
A LL LL II S
S

35 th St

45

H

20 th St

Fo

st
re

Linc oln Av e

43 rd St

60 th St

Linc oln Av e

24
Cle ve la nd A ve
Cle ve la nd A ve

60 th St

KK-10

KK-9

KK-3

Oklahom a A ve

Cle me nt A ve

ve

Cha se A ve

A

6th St

e
om

13 th St

H

20 th St

t
es

43 rd St

r
Fo

27 th St

Oklahom a A ve

35 th St

T

62

32

Morga n A ve

KINNICKI NNI C RIVE R

Morga n A ve

KK-1

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
S
S TT .. FF R
RA
AN
NC
C II S
S

241

U

Howa rd Av e

894

KK-8

KK-7
36

45

Boliva r Av e

43

94
38

100

894

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
D
E LL D
G
N FF II E
EN
EE
RE
GR

KK-6
Y

Howe ll Av e

43

La y ton A ve

62

Penns ylv annia A ve

6th St

13 th St

20 th St

35 th St

24

27 th St

Y
N

Y

La y ton A ve

Edger ton A ve

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
C
CU
UD
DA
AH
HY
Y

KK-4

KK-5

32

Gra nge Av e
Gra nge Av e

Village of
HALES CORNERS

119

Village of
GREENDALE
62

ZZ

ZZ

32

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Combined Sewer Service Area

)LJXUH7
KK Watershed
$VVHVVPHQW3RLQWArea

Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watershed
Waterbodies

0

1,200 2,400

Civil Division

Feet

4,800

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHE'

Cleve land Ave

KK-1

r
Fo

t
es

e

e
Av

60th St

43rd St

Oklahoma Ave

m
Ho

Morga n Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH8
Land Use Map : KK-1
0

350

700
Feet

1,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% of the 1.3 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee.
The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 12%. 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 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%

Civil Division

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% 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 4-9 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
(BOD) 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.
4-29

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 resuspended 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
In 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 4-9 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.

4-30

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Lyons park Creek (RI 831)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Lyons Park Creek – Reach 831
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-11

KK-1 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

Assessment
Water Quality
Point
Indicator
KK-1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Lyons Park Creek
(annual)

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

492
296
2,660
90

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

361
150

Dissolved Oxygen

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a

6.6
6.3
100

Total Phosphorus

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)

Total Nitrogen
Total Suspended Solids
Copper
a

Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Baseline
Condition
5,659
80

0.052
0.031
88
0.66
0.67
8.5
5.0
0.0036
0.0013

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-34

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-9

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial*

Pasture (B)

Transportation*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential*

Ultra Low*

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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 FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

Loads

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.

4-35

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-11
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE/ YEAR)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds/acre

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Crop(B)

Loads

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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.

4-36

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 44%
reduction in Baseline FC loads and a 14% reduction in Baseline BOD loads. The major reason
for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the RWQMPU projection that 33% of the “unknown”
FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report
No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by
the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the
challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
Loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source.
Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-2. Note that this table reflects compliance with
applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of
compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a
function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table
evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are
focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. 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% reduction in FC loading and the 14% reduction in BOD loading, water
quality modeling of the Year 2020 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 Year 2020 conditions
indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area
4-37

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

(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.

TABLE 4-12
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

KK-1
Lyons Park Creek

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

82

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

278

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

331

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

a

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

Mean (mg/l)

6.6

Median (mg/l)

6.3

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.047

Median (mg/l)

0.029
89

Mean (mg/l)

0.61

Median (mg/l)

0.61

Mean (mg/l)

6.8

Median (mg/l)
Copper

3,184

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition

4.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0030

Median (mg/l)

0.0011

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-38

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-13

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

Loads

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.

4-39

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-15
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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.

4-40

Watershed Restoration Plan
4.5.2

Kinnickinnic River

South 43rd Street Ditch (Assessment Point KK-2)

The 43rd 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 43rd 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 43rd Street Ditch begins about ¼ mile southwest of the intersection of Burnham Street
and Miller Park Way. The stream flows easterly along a natural, but straightened channel to 43rd
Street. At this point, the stream enters enclosed conduit and flows southerly along 43rd 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 reenters 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 4-56.
As noted above, the 43rd 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 60th
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 43rd Street Ditch, which
flows from the north. This point marks the downstream terminus of the 43rd 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 43rd 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 43rd
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 43rd 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 43rd Street
assessment point area (KK-2) is predominantly residential, including high-density residential
(41%) and low-density residential (2%) (these are defined in the following table). Local roads
and arterial streets contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 31% 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% of the total land use.
Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional and governmental, and
commercial land uses compose the remaining 15% of the area. Based on an analysis of land use
information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 40% of the South 43rd Street
4-41

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Ditch assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-16 presents the Baseline land use in the
South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area.
TABLE 4-16
RD

LAND USE IN THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.1

2.17%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-42

Nat

ve
al A
io n

lo
Be

ve

KK-2

r
Fo

Oklahoma Ave

43rd St

60th St

Linco ln Ave

tH
es

om

e

e
Av

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH12
Land Use Map : KK-2
0

355

710
Feet

1,420

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

27th St

A
it

35th St

Burnh am St

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the South 43rd
Street assessment point area (KK-2). The municipalities are the cities of Milwaukee and West
Allis and the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 55% of the 3.1 square mile area is located
within the city of West Allis. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 30% and the village of
West Milwaukee occupies the remaining 15%. The extent of the civil divisions within the South
43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17
rd

CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
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%

Civil Division

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 43rd 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% 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 43rd 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 4-13 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
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
4-44

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of BOD 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 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) or
to in-stream erosion that would be more prevalent during high flows. Note that the South 43rd
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% 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-19 presents the 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.

4-45

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ S. 43rd Street Ditch (RI 801)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

South 43rd Street Ditch – Reach 801
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-15

KK-2 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-18
rd

MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)

Assessment
Point
KK-2
S. 43rd Street
Ditch

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

227
325
2,047
91

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

153
153

Dissolved Oxygen

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a

9.5
9.4
100

Total Phosphorus

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)

Total Nitrogen
Total Suspended Solids
Copper

a

Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Baseline
Condition
4,080
82

0.087
0.072
85
0.81
0.78
9.2
3.8
0.0033
0.0007

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

.

4-49

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-19
rd

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / YEAR)

340.85

--

133.75

--

57.78

1.52

1.02

SSOs

Ultra Low*

--

CSOs

Transportation*

6.27

Industrial

Residential*

0.62

Wetland

Pasture(B)

--

Industrial*

--

Grass(D)

350.01

Grass(C)

pounds

Grass(B)

TP

Government /
Institution*

Crop(C)

Units

Point Sources

Forest

Crop(B)

Loads

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

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
rd

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

--

1%

Loads

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.

4-50

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-21
rd

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.32
0.13

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

---

0.31
0.02

---

0.12
0.08

---

0.05
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.42
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

0

--

2

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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.

4-51

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the 43rd 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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 15% reduction in
Baseline BOD loads within the 43rd 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
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 33% of the “unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated.
The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of
the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was
determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding
and fixing the sources.
Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading and the 15%
reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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 Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of
flashiness within the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area would remain unchanged as
4-52

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under
Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-22
rd

MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Assessment
Point
KK-2
S. 43rd Street
Ditch

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

a

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

9.6

Median (mg/l)

9.4

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.082

Median (mg/l)

0.071

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition

86

Mean (mg/l)

0.77

Median (mg/l)

0.75

Mean (mg/l)

8.0

Median (mg/l)

3.4

Mean (mg/l)

0.0026

Median (mg/l)

0.0006

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-53

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-23

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43

RD

STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

2,068

Loads

Units

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
RD

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43

STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

--

1%

Loads

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.

4-54

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-25
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43

RD

STREET ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

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.

4-55

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.3 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 (43rd Street and Morgan Ave.) and Pilgrim‟s Rest
Cemetery (Forest Home Avenue and 33rd Street).
This reach of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem begins south of the UP rail line and about 300
feet east of 43rd Street. This point marks the confluence of the 43rd 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 35th 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 St. Luke‟s Hospital. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem (KK-3) assessment point area
terminates just upstream of the hospital and the river‟s 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% 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% (this is defined in the following table); local roads, arterial streets, and
several large parking lots contribute to transportation comprising approximately 33% 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% of the total land use. Institutional and
governmental, commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining
14%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 30% of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is
impervious. TABLE 4-26 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem
assessment point area (KK-3).

4-56

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-26

LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.0

0.00%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-57

lo
Be

ve

20th St

27th St

35th St

A
it

Linco ln Ave

Cleve land Av

KK-3
e

Oklahoma A

20th St

43rd St

60th St

om

35th St

r
Fo

Oklahoma Ave

tH
es

e
Av

Morga n Av
Morga n Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH16
Land Use Map : KK-3
0

345

690
Feet

1,380

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
of the 1.3 square mile area. The city of Greenfield occupies nearly 14%. 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 427.
TABLE 4-27
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
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%

Civil Division

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% 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 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 4-17 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
good and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for

4-59

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 BOD 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% 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-29 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 434 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-60

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River Upstream of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek
Creek (RI 710)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Kinnickinnic River Upstream of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek – Reach 710
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-19

KK-3 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-28

MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment
Water Quality
Point
Indicator
KK-3
Fecal Coliform
Kinnickinnic
Bacteria
River Upstream
(annual)
of Confluence
with Wilson
Park Creek

Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
(May-September:
153 days total)

Baseline
Condition
5,373
79

371
305

2,747
89

260
152

Dissolved Oxygen

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a

Total Phosphorus

Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Percent compliance with
recommended phosphorus
standard (0.1 mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)

0.073
0.053
85

Median (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)

4.2
0.0037
0.001

Total Nitrogen
Total Suspended
Solids
Copper
a

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)a
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single
sample standard (<2,000 cells per
100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric
mean standard (<1,000 cells per
100 ml)a

9.4
8.8
100

0.74
0.74
10.6

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-64

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-29

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Transportation*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential*

Ultra Low*

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

Loads

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.

4-65

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-31
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.26
0.11

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

---

0.35
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

---

0.08
0.03

---

0.01
0.00

0.00
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

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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 THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

3,618

Loads

Units

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.

4-66

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-33
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

--

0%

Loads

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 THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Transportation

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0.000

--

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.

4-67

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads and a 45% 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 33% of the “unknown” FC source
loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50,
Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the
year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges
and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table
evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are
focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
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% reduction in FC loading and the 16% reduction in TP loading, water
quality modeling of the Year 2020 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
4-68

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards.
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment 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.
TABLE 4-35
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment
Point
KK-3
Kinnickinnic River
Upstream of
Confluence with
Wilson Park Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

82

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

214
335

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

91

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

152

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

153

Mean (mg/l)

9.4

Median (mg/l)

8.8

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.068

Median (mg/l)

0.051

a

87

Mean (mg/l)

0.68

Median (mg/l)

0.69

Mean (mg/l)

8.7

Median (mg/l)
Copper

1,578

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition
3,011

3.5

Mean (mg/l)

0.0030

Median (mg/l)

0.0008

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-69

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-36

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Industrial*

Wetland

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds

383.66

--

--

2.88

10.39

--

468.23

0.17

6.65

--

117.60

--

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

TP

38%

--

--

0%

1%

--

46%

0%

1%

--

12%

--

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%

Loads

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.

4-70

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-38
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds/acre

0.23

--

--

0.00

0.01

--

0.28

0.00

0.00

--

0.07

--

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds

885.27

--

--

3.73

20.46

--

992.69

0.17

111.83

--

247.35

--

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

0

--

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.

4-71

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-40
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds

32%

--

--

0%

1%

--

36%

0%

4%

--

9%

--

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%

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds/acre

0.244

--

--

0.001

0.006

--

0.274

0.000

0.031

--

0.068

--

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

0.000

--

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.

4-72

Watershed Restoration Plan
4.5.4

Kinnickinnic River

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 General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA) 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 ½ 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 GMIA 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 4-133.
Upstream, Wilson Park Creek, including Edgerton Ditch, flow through low and high-density
residential, manufacturing, and industrial land uses. Farther west and downstream, the creek
flows through (and beneath) GMIA. 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%) due to GMIA. Recreation,
natural areas, and open space make up approximately 12% of the total land use. Low-density
residential (this is defined in the following table) land use makes up 9% of the total land use
while manufacturing and industrial, agricultural, institutional and governmental, commercial,
and high-density residential land uses compose the remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land
use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 23% 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.

4-73

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
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.

4-74

Howell Ave

KK-4

6th St

Pennsy lvannia Ave

Layton Ave

Grange Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH20
Land Use Map : KK-4
0

420

840
Feet

1,680

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% of the 3.5 square mile area. The
city of Cudahy occupies nearly 43% and the city of St. Francis occupies the remaining 3%. 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 IN 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% 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 FC
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 4-21 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
exceed 5 mg/l on some days and are very high during the winter months. This might be caused
by deicing fluids used at GMIA. Deicing fluids often contain phosphorus compounds that serve
4-76

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 resuspended 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
Creek‟s 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 BOD 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 South Shore Water Reclamation Facility
(SSWRF), 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-45 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.

4-77

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Wison Park Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue
Creek (RI 828)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
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

Wilson Park Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue Creek – Reach 828
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-23

KK-4 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-44
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment
Point
KK-4
Wilson Creek
Upstream of
Holmes Avenue
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

52

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

609

Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)

54

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.5

Median (mg/l)

7.3

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.144

Median (mg/l)

0.04
81

Mean (mg/l)

1.12

Median (mg/l)

0.5

Mean (mg/l)

20.1

Median (mg/l)
Copper

3,897

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

6.5

Mean (mg/l)

0.0041

Median (mg/l)

0.0019

4-81

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-45

BASELINE LOAD FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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
billion
counts

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

257,538

49

34

23

27,225

1,695

48,792

--

54,304

4

61,958

5,636

775

46

0

--

16,143

Loads

Units

FC

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)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

4%

45%

--

9%

0%

TSS

47%

2%

1%

0%

1%

1%

8%

--

32%

0%

BOD

16%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

8%

--

10%

0%

FC

54%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

10%

--

11%

0%

SSOs

Grass(D)

1%

CSOs

Grass(C)

0%

Industrial

Grass(B)

0%

Wetland

Government /
Institution*

0%

Ultra Low*

Forest

21%

Transportation*

Crop(C)

TP

Loads

Residential*

Crop(B)

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

3%

1%

0%

1%

15%

--

1%

4%

2%

0%

0%

1%

--

0%

1%

57%

0%

1%

4%

--

0%

13%

1%

0%

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.

4-82

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-47
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.19
0.08

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.03
0.00

0.40
0.01

---

0.08
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.02
0.01

0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

0.13
0.00

---

0.01
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

0

--

7

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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.

4-83

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 19% 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 33% of the
“unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU
(Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified
and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment,
considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not
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 were used.
For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance
standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water
quality variance standards.
TABLE 4-49 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-50 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-51 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 13% reduction in TP loading, and the
19% reduction in TSS loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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 Year 2020 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.
4-84

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-48

MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment
Point
KK-4
Wilson Park Creek
Upstream of
Holmes Avenue
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.6

Median (mg/l)

7.3

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.141

Median (mg/l)

0.039

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition

83

Mean (mg/l)

1.08

Median (mg/l)

0.45

Mean (mg/l)

15.1

Median (mg/l)

5.4

Mean (mg/l)

0.0035

Median (mg/l)

0.0017

4-85

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-49

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

3,511

Loads

Units

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 FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (PERCENT)

Loads

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

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

4-86

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-51
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

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.

4-87

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.5 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 I94 about ¼ 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 ¼ mile west of
Holler Park. At this point, the creek emerges and flows northerly within a concrete-line channel.
In the vicinity of 10th Street and Carpenter Avenue, the creek changes direction and flows
easterly past 6th 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 ¼ mile southwest of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues.
Upstream of the confluence, the 1-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%), including GMIA,
highways, and large parking lots. Low-density residential makes up approximately 25% of the
total land use (this is defined in the following table). Recreation, natural areas, and open space
land use make up 9% of the total land use while manufacturing and industrial, high-density
residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land uses compose the remaining
18%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 43% 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.

4-88

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-52

LAND USE IN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.4

25.32%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling units /
net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre) along
with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-89

13th St

20th St

27th St

35th St

Howe ll Ave

6th St

KK-5

Layton Ave

Edge rton Ave

Grange Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH24
Land Use Map : KK-5
0

335

670
Feet

1,340

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 IN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
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%

Civil Division

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% 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 FC
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 4-25 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%
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

4-91

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

algae growth or inputs of BOD. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is
typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water.
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 resuspended 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables 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.

4-92

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Holmes Avenue Creek (RI 830)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Holmes Avenue Creek – Reach 830
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-27

KK-5 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-54
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment
Point
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

9.9

Median (mg/l)

9.8

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)

92

Mean (mg/l)

0.131

Median (mg/l)

0.072

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

77

Mean (mg/l)

1.24

Median (mg/l)

0.91

Mean (mg/l)

9.7

Median (mg/l)

3.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0040

Median (mg/l)

0.0009

4-96

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-55

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

--

1.33

4.56

3.62

376.91

0.27

50.50

--

TSS

tons

188.71

--

--

0.18

2.15

0.12

14.18

0.01

37.66

--

BOD

pounds
billion
counts

18,642

--

--

78

390

50

4,145

3

3,220

--

230,847

--

--

9

10,271

76

18,636

16

14,149

--

FC

46.62

104.11

0.73

16.19

62.19

0.28

1,565

16,274

28

50,971

36,112

775

SSOs

Grass(D)

--

CSOs

Grass(C)

415.11

Industrial

Grass(B)

pounds

Wetland

Government /
Institution*

TP

Ultra Low*

Forest

Units

Transportation*

Crop(C)

Loads

Residential*

Crop(B)

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

2.47

441.64

--

--

0.08

0.40

--

--

85

1,123.94

--

--

5

0

--

--

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 THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

TP

29%

--

--

0%

0%

0%

26%

0%

3%

--

3%

7%

0%

0%

31%

--

--

Loads

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%

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.

4-97

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-57
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.39
0.18

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.35
0.01

0.00
0.00

0.05
0.04

---

0.04
0.02

0.10
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.41
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

0

--

--

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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.

4-98

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 16% 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 33% of the
“unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU
(Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified
and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment,
considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table
evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are
focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
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% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading, and the
16% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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.
4-99

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the
Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) would remain unchanged as poor. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020
conditions.

TABLE 4-58
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment
Point
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

9.9

Median (mg/l)

9.8

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

92

Mean (mg/l)

0.124

Median (mg/l)

0.069

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition

78

Mean (mg/l)

1.18

Median (mg/l)

0.86

Mean (mg/l)

7.8

Median (mg/l)

3.1

Mean (mg/l)

0.0033

Median (mg/l)

0.0008

4-100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-59

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Pasture(B)

Wetland

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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
billion
counts

15,602

--

--

66

325

39

3,341

2

2,872

--

1,310

15,495

22

55

1,124

--

--

126,860

--

--

7

5,607

40

9,939

7

8,358

--

27,581

19,742

400

3

0

--

--

FC

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 THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

--

--

Loads

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.

4-101

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-61
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

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.

4-102

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.6 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 35th Street and Layton Avenue, about ¼ 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 27th Street. On the east side of 27th
Street and north of the 27th Street interchange on I-894, the creek enters enclosed conduit and
flows easterly to a point about ¼ 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 Creek‟s confluence with another stream within the assessment point area. This is a
¼ 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 4-133.
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 27th Street interchange on I-894. East of 27th Street, the
creek flows within enclosed conduit, beneath an undeveloped area located east of the 27th 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 I894, 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%) and high-density residential
(8%) 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% 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%. Based
on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately
34% 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.

4-103

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-62
LAND USE IN THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.4

41.53%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-104

KK-6
Boliva r Ave

6th St

13th St

20th St

27th St

35th St

Layto n Ave

Edgerton Ave

Grang e Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH28
Land Use Map : KK-6
0

335

670
Feet

1,340

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% of the 1.1 square mile area is located within the city of Greenfield. The
city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 26%. 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 IN THE VILLA MANN ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
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%

Civil Division

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% 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 FC
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 4-29 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
spring months. This variability could be explained by excessive attached algae growth or inputs
of BOD. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely
4-106

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
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 concretelined 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-65 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.

4-107

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Villa Mann Creek (RI 820)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Villa Mann Creek – Reach 820
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-31

KK-6 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-64
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment
Point
KK-6
Villa Mann Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.4

Median (mg/l)

6.6

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

70

Mean (mg/l)

0.061

Median (mg/l)

0.034

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

85

Mean (mg/l)

0.70

Median (mg/l)

0.74

Mean (mg/l)

8.9

Median (mg/l)

5.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0041

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

4-111

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-65

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

--

--

--

Loads

Units

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 FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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.

4-112

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-67
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

tons/acre

0.29
0.13

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

0.01
0.00

0.41
0.02

---

0.00
0.00

---

0.06
0.02

0.09
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

---

---

---

pounds/acre

13.17

--

--

0.03

0.45

0.11

4.51

--

0.04

--

2.05

3.98

0.06

0.06

--

--

--

billion counts/acre

163

--

--

0

12

0

20

--

0

--

67

32

2

0

--

--

--

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS
BOD
FC

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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.

4-113

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 17% 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 33% of the
“unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU
(Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified
and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment,
considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table
evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are
focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
TABLE 4-69 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-70 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-71 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading, and the
17% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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 Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness
within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See
4-114

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020
conditions.

TABLE 4-68
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment
Point
KK-6
Villa Mann Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.4

Median (mg/l)

6.7

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

71

Mean (mg/l)

0.054

Median (mg/l)

0.032

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020 Condition

87

Mean (mg/l)

0.62

Median (mg/l)

0.65

Mean (mg/l)

7.3

Median (mg/l)

3.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0033

Median (mg/l)

0.0010

4-115

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-69

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0.00

0.00

--

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

--

--

--

Loads

Units

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)

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Residential*

0%

Pasture(B)

Government /
Institution*

--

Industrial*

Forest

--

Grass(D)

Crop(C)

36%

Grass(C)

Crop(B)

TP

Loads

Point Sources

Grass(B)

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

0%

--

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.

4-116

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-71
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

0

--

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.

4-117

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.7 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. From this point, the creek flows northeasterly within a natural channel. The creek
enters enclosed conduit at 36th 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 43rd Street, and then
flows northeasterly through Zablocki Park and Golf Course. At the intersection of Loomis Road
and 35th 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 4133.
With a few exceptions, the width of the riparian margin along Cherokee Park Creek is relatively
narrow and less than 25 feet. Approximately 20% of the creek within the assessment point area
has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. 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%). High-density residential (18%) and low-density residential (17%) 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% of the
total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with commercial, and
manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 17%. Based on an analysis of
land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 27% 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.

4-118

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-72
LAND USE IN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.2

17.28%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-119

13t

20t

35th

43rd S

60th St

27th

Morga n Ave

KK-7

Morga n Ave

Howa rd Ave

Boliva r Ave

St

t

St

St

Layto n Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH32
Land Use Map : KK-7
0

335

670
Feet

1,340

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% of the 1.0 square mile assessment point area is located within the city
of Greenfield. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 9%. The extent of the civil
divisions within the area is presented in TABLE 4-73.
TABLE 4-73
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
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%

Civil Division

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% 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, FC
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 4-33 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
spring months. This variability could be explained by the excessive growth of attached algae or
inputs of BOD. 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
4-121

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% 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% 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-75 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-76 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-77
presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-122

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Cherokee Park Creek (RI 19)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Cherokee Park Creek – Reach 019
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-35

KK-7 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-74
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment
Point
KK-7
Cherokee Park
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.3

Median (mg/l)

6.5

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)

71

Mean (mg/l)

0.054

Median (mg/l)

0.033

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

88

Mean (mg/l)

0.67

Median (mg/l)

0.59

Mean (mg/l)

7.7

Median (mg/l)

5.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0036

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-126

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-75

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

Loads

Units

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 THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

--

--

--

Loads

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.

4-127

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-77
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.23
0.10

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

---

0.36
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

---

0.05
0.02

0.06
0.03

0.01
0.01

0.00
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

--

--

--

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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.

4-128

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline FC loads and a 15% 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 33% of the “unknown” FC source loads will be
eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was
that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33%
was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of
finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not
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 were used.
For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance
standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider 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, and TABLE 4-81 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 44% reduction in FC loading and the 15% reduction in BOD loading, water
quality modeling of the Year 2020 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 Year 2020 condition indicates that the assessment of flashiness
4-129

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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.
TABLE 4-78
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment
Point
KK-7
Cherokee Park
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

75

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

265

Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)

137

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

Mean (mg/l)

7.3

Median (mg/l)

6.7

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

71

Mean (mg/l)

0.049

Median (mg/l)

0.031
89

Mean (mg/l)

0.61

Median (mg/l)

0.53

Mean (mg/l)

6.7

Median (mg/l)
Copper

2,632

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020
Condition

4.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0030

Median (mg/l)

0.0010

4-130

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-79

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Industrial*

Wetland

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

3%

--

9%

13%

3%

0%

--

--

--

FC

52%

--

--

0%

1%

--

7%

0%

1%

--

23%

9%

7%

0%

--

--

--

Loads

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.

4-131

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-81

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

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.

4-132

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.8 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 located approximately 500 feet northwest
of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues. From this point, within a concrete-lined
channel, the creek flows westerly toward 5th Street and then changes direction and flows
northwesterly toward the intersection of Armour Avenue and 6th Street. On the west side of 6th
Street, a natural channel replaces the concrete-lined channel. The creek continues to flow
northwesterly towards the point where I-94/I-43 passess over 13th Street. About 600 feet
southeast of that point, the creek re-enters a concrete-lined channel and flows under the interstate
and 13th Street and re-enters a natural channel west of 13th 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 20th 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 Saint Luke‟s 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.
Adalbert‟s 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% 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%), including highways, local roads, and arterial streets. High-density
residential (23%) and low-density residential (12%) 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% of the total land use. Institutional and
governmental, along with commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the
remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality
data, approximately 31% of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area is impervious. TABLE
4-82 presents the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area.

4-133

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-82

LAND USE IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.5

12.39%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-134

t
es

e

e
Av
Oklahoma Ave

Cleme nt Ave

Chase Ave

6th St
h St

13th St
St

20th St
h St

St

St

35th St

27th St

KK-8
43rd St

r
Fo

m
Ho

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH36
Land Use Map : KK-8
0

385

770
Feet

1,540

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% of the 3.8 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee.
The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 6%. The extent of the civil divisions within the
area is presented in TABLE 4-83.
TABLE 4-83
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
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%

Civil Division

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% 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, FC
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 4-37 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
increases; this could be related to de-icing activities at the airport. De-icing chemicals contain
phosphorus that serve as corrosion inhibitors.

4-136

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS
data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-85 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-86 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and 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, and 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.

4-137

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ Wilson park Creek, USGS Gage (RI 818)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

Wilson Park Creek (USGS Gage) – Reach 818
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-39

KK-8 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-84
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment
Point
KK-8
Wilson Park
Creek, USGS
Gauge

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

56

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

697

Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)

35

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

Mean (mg/l)

10.9

Median (mg/l)

11.2

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.116

Median (mg/l)

0.055
77

Mean (mg/l)

0.96

Median (mg/l)

0.7

Mean (mg/l)

14.1

Median (mg/l)
Copper

5,124

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

4.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0044

Median (mg/l)

0.0018

4-141

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-85

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Transportation*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential*

Ultra Low*

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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 THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

--

--

--

Loads

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.

4-142

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-87

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

TSS

tons/acre

0.27
0.12

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.38
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.02
0.01

---

0.05
0.02

0.05
0.03

0.01
0.00

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

--

--

--

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

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 THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government / Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

16,143

Loads

Units

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.

4-143

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-89

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

--

1%

Loads

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 THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

Loads

Units

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

0.000

--

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.

4-144

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 46% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 16% 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 33% of the
“unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU
(Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified
and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment,
considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
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 will not
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 were used.
For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance
standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water
quality variance standards.
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% reduction in FC loading, the 17% reduction in TP loading, and the
16% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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
4-145

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 assessments in
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards.
Modeling of the Year 2020 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.

TABLE 4-91
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

KK-8
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Wilson Park Creek,
(annual)
USGS Gauge

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

10.9

Median (mg/l)

11.2

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>5 mg/l)

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.110

Median (mg/l)

0.053

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Year 2020 Condition

79

Mean (mg/l)

0.91

Median (mg/l)

0.63

Mean (mg/l)

11.3

Median (mg/l)

3.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0037

Median (mg/l)

0.0015

4-146

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-92

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Pasture(B)

Wetland

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

--

--

--

Loads

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.

4-147

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-94
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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)

274.24

--

258.27

291.46

28.95

SSOs

1.78

CSOs

2,080.81

Industrial

71.92

Wetland

28.98

Ultra Low

8.13

Transportation

--

Residential

--

Pasture(B)

Government /
Institution

1,637.95

Industrial

Forest

pounds

Grass(D)

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Grass(C)

Crop(B)

Loads

Point sources

Grass(B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

--

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.

4-148

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-96

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

--

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)

0.296

0.000

0.039

--

SSOs

Pasture(B)

0.010

CSOs

Industrial

0.004

Industrial

Grass(D)

0.001

Wetland

Grass(C)

--

Ultra Low

Grass(B)

--

Transportation

Government /
Institution

0.233

Residential

Forest

pounds/acre

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Crop(B)

Loads

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0.000

--

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.

4-149

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.9 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. Luke‟s
Hospital, immediately downstream of its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. From there, the
river flows easterly through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway, beneath 27th Street and then south
of the Forest Home Cemetery and the north of Pulaski High School. East of 20th Street and the
Kinnickinnic Sports Center, the river changes direction and flows northerly along 16th 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 concretelined 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 20th 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%), which is
largly due to the Forest Home Cemetery, Saint Francis Hospital and St. Luke‟s Hospital. Highdensity residential (25%) (this is defined on the following table) and transportation (24%) 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% of the total land use.
Manufacturing and industrial land uses, along with commercial land uses compose the remaining
8%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 27% 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 (KK-9).

4-150

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-98

LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA KK-9
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.0

0.00%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.

4-151

43rd St

Linco ln Ave

Cleve land Ave

KK-9

e
Av

Chase Ave

6th St

13th St

20th St

Oklahoma Ave

35th St

H
st

e

43rd St

re
Fo

om

Morga n Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH40
Land Use Map : KK-9
0

285

570
Feet

1,140

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
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%

Civil Division

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 SSOs. It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 60% 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, FC 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 4-41 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.
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
4-153

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 resuspended 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 March‟s 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-101 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4103 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.

4-154

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ South 27th Street (RI 12)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

South 27th Street (RI-12) – Reach 807
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-43

KK-9 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

South 27th Street (RI-12) – Reach 807
Chloride
Flow Conditions

Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L)

Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

C onc e ntra tion (m g/L)

1000

100

10

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data
FIGURE 4-44

KK-9 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-100
MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

KK-9
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Kinnickinnic River
(annual)
Downstream of
Wilson Park
Creek

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

a

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

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

Mean (mg/l)

11.3

Median (mg/l)

11.4

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.206

Median (mg/l)

0.171

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

24

Mean (mg/l)

1.39

Median (mg/l)

1.22

Mean (mg/l)

14.5

Median (mg/l)

4.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0047

Median (mg/l)

0.0019

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-159

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-101

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

63,549

957,778

Loads

Units

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads
TP
TSS
BOD
FC

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

10%
46%
26%
8%

-----

-----

0%
0%
0%
0%

1%
3%
2%
2%

-----

17%
10%
11%
1%

-----

2%
13%
7%
1%

-----

2%
7%
4%
3%

-----

1%
3%
2%
1%

0%
0%
0%
0%

13%
0%
3%
0%

3%
2%
3%
5%

52%
16%
42%
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.

4-160

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-103
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.23
0.09

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01

---

0.37
0.02

---

0.04
0.03

---

0.04
0.01

---

0.02
0.01

0.00
0.00

0.29
0.00

0.07
0.00

1.14
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

0.00

83

1,251

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

Loads

Units

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

0.00

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.

4-161

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-105
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

2%

24%

Loads

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0.000

5.566

85.613

Loads

Units

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.

4-162

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads and a 78% 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 33% of the “unknown” FC source
loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50,
Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the
year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges
and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented 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 will not
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 were used.
For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance
standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water
quality variance standards.
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% reduction in FC loading and the 51% reduction in TP loading, water
quality modeling of the Year 2020 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
4-163

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory
standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness
within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment 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.

TABLE 4-107
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment
Point
KK-9
Kinnickinnic River
Downstream of
Wilson Park Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic

Year 2020 Condition

Mean (cells per 100 ml)
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

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

a

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

Mean (mg/l)

11.3

Median (mg/l)

11.4

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.195

Median (mg/l)

0.162

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

3,028

25

Mean (mg/l)

1.29

Median (mg/l)

1.12

Mean (mg/l)

11.7

Median (mg/l)

3.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0040

Median (mg/l)

0.0017

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-164

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-108

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

Loads

Units

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

0

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

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%

0%

12%

50%

Loads

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.

4-165

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-110
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE /YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

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)

1.95

407.30

--

532.97

291.46

54.64

SSOs

3,299.58

CSOs

71.92

Industrial

Ultra Low

56.96

Wetland

Transportation

13.16

Residential

--

Pasture(B)

--

Industrial

2,676.11

Grass(D)

Forest

pounds

Grass(C)

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Grass(B)

Crop(B)

Loads

Point Sources

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0

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.

4-166

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-112

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Transportation

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

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)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds/acre

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Crop(B)

Loads

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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
0.000

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

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

0.000

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.

4-167

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

KK-10
The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) is located downstream of the
combined sewer service area that is located between 16th and 6th 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 6th Street and flows southeasterly toward I-94/I-43. Just east of
6th Street, the river flows within a concrete-lined channel, but then enters a natural channel west
of 5th Street. Farther 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; farther
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%) (this is defined in
the following table). Transportation, including highway, arterial streets, and local roads
contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 36% of the total land use.
Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses and institutional and governmental land uses
make up 18% of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial, commercial, and low-density
residential land uses compose the remaining 9%. Based on an analysis of land use information
used to develop the water quality data, approximately 33% of the Kinnickinnic River assessment
point area (KK-10) is impervious. TABLE 4-114 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic
River assessment point area (KK-10).

4-168

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-114

LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.0

0.12%

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%

Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential

1

High Density Residential

2

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 IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
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%

Civil Division

4-169

KK-10
Cleveland Ave

Clement Ave

13th St

6th St

Chase Ave

Oklahoma Ave

Morgan Ave

Howard Ave

LEGEND
Assessment Points

Land Use
Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetland, and Woodland, Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds

Commercial

Surface Water

Routing Reach Tributary Area

Institutional and Governemntal

Civil Divisions

Water
Waterbodies

)LJXUH45
Land Use Map : KK-10

Combined Sewer Service Area

0

380

760
Feet

1,520

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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% 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, FC
concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See

4-171

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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 4-46 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 March‟s 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table
evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are
focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-117 presents the annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4119 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
4-172

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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.

4-173

Average Number of Days Per Year

Kinnickinnic River @ South 27th Street (RI 13)
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000

4000-5000

3000-4000

2000-3000

1000-2000

600-1000

400-600

0-400

Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)

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

South 7th Street (RI-13) – Reach 806
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-48

KK-10 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

South 7th Street (RI-13) – Reach 806
Chloride
Flow Conditions

Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L)

Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

C onc e ntra tion (m g/L)

1000

100

10

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data
FIGURE 4-49

KK-10 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-116

MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

KK-10
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Kinnickinnic River
(annual)
near Upstream
Limit of Estuary

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

74

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

842

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

229

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

a

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

Mean (mg/l)

11.4

Median (mg/l)

11.5

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.196

Median (mg/l)

0.165
27

Mean (mg/l)

1.36

Median (mg/l)

1.21

Mean (mg/l)

13.2

Median (mg/l)
Copper

5,859

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

Baseline
Condition

4.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0048

Median (mg/l)

0.0019

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-178

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-117
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

TP

pounds

339.48

--

--

1.57

3.78

--

473.44

1.28

55.36

--

88.43

86.13

13.07

2.66

SSOs

Forest

Units

CSOs

Crop(C)

Loads

Industrial

Crop(B)

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

0.00

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

0

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads
TP
TSS
BOD
FC

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

23%
46%
37%
22%

-----

-----

0%
0%
0%
0%

0%
1%
1%
1%

-----

32%
8%
13%
3%

0%
0%
0%
0%

4%
12%
9%
2%

-----

6%
10%
7%
11%

6%
16%
9%
3%

1%
2%
1%
2%

0%
0%
0%
0%

0%
0%
7%
0%

29%
6%
15%
57%

0%
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.

4-179

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-119
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

tons/acre

0.25
0.10

---

---

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

---

0.35
0.02

0.00
0.00

0.04
0.03

---

0.06
0.02

0.06
0.04

0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.32
0.01

0.00
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

0

360

0

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

TSS

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

49

34

116

153,048

1,912

224,981

212

146,232

4

760,972

146,879

78,674

103

0

554,787

978,056

Loads

Units

FC

billion counts 1,845,301

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.

4-180

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-121

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)

SSOs

0%

CSOs

4%

Industrial

0%

Wetland

37%

Ultra Low

1%

Transportation

1%

Residential

0%

Pasture(B)

Government /
Institution

0%

Industrial

Forest

0%

Grass(D)

Crop(C)

26%

Grass(C)

Crop(B)

TP

Loads

Point Sources

Grass(B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

5%

3%

1%

0%

11%

4%

7%
1%

TSS

54%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

8%

0%

14%

0%

9%

9%

1%

0%

0%

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%

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)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds/acre

Crop(C)

Units

TP

Crop(B)

Loads

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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
0.002

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

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

0.000

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.

4-181

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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%
reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 42% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 20% 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
33% of the “unknown” FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the
RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would
be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional
judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources.
Modeled Year 2020 water quality for the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area is
presented 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 will not 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 were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
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 load, 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% reduction in FC loading, the 24% reduction in TP loading, and the
20% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 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
4-182

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the
assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory
standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment 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.

TABLE 4-123
MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (KK-10)
Assessment
Point
KK-10
Kinnickinnic River
near Upstream
Limit of Estuary

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(May-September: 153
days total)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic

Year 2020 Condition

Mean (cells per 100 ml)
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

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

a

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

Mean (mg/l)

11.4

Median (mg/l)

11.5

Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen
standard (>2 mg/l)a

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.185

Median (mg/l)

0.155

Percent compliance with recommended
phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen

3,091

28

Mean (mg/l)

1.26

Median (mg/l)

1.11

Mean (mg/l)

10.7

Median (mg/l)

3.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0040

Median (mg/l)

0.0017

Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.

4-183

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-124

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Transportation*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential*

Ultra Low*

Loads

Government /
Institution*

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

TP

pounds

294.85

--

--

1.47

3.35

--

366.23

1.02

41.19

--

74.16

76.21

10.53

2.73

0.00

262.51

0.00

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

0

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial*

Pasture(B)

Residential*

Transportation*

Ultra Low*

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial*

Nonpoint Sources

TP

26%

--

--

0%

0%

--

32%

0%

4%

--

7%

7%

1%

0%

0%

23%

0%

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%

0%

59%

0%

Loads

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.

4-184

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-126

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads
TP

pounds/acre

0.22

--

--

0.00

0.00

--

0.27

0.00

0.03

--

0.05

0.06

0.01

0.00

0

0.19

0

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

0

10

--

68

0

9

0

0

389

1

SSOs

Crop(B)

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

Loads

Units

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

0

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.

4-185

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 4-128

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Transportation

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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%

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)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Industrial

Pasture(B)

Transportation

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Residential

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Sources

Commercial

Nonpoint Sources

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

0.000

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.

4-186

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4A

MEMORANDUM REPORT NO. 194

STREAM HABITAT
CONDITIONS AND
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE
KINNICKINNIC AND
MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHEDS: 2000-2009

SOUTHEASTERN

WISCONSIN

REGIONAL

PLANNING

COMMISSION

SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
KENOSHA COUNTY

RACINE COUNTY

Anita M. Faraone
Adelene Greene,
Secretary
Robert W. Pitts

Susan S. Greenfield
Mary A. Kacmarcik
Michael J. Miklasevich

MILWAUKEE COUNTY

WALWORTH COUNTY

Brian Dranzik
John Rogers
John F. Weishan, Jr.

Richard A. Hansen,
Vice-Chairman
Gregory L. Holden
Nancy Russell,
Treasurer

OZAUKEE COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Thomas H. Buestrin
William E. Johnson
Gustav W. Wirth, Jr.

John M. Jung
Daniel S. Schmidt
David L. Stroik,
Chairman
WAUKESHA COUNTY
James T. Dwyer
Anselmo Villareal
Paul G. Vrakas

SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
Kenneth R. Yunker, PE..............................................Executive Director

SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS
TRUST, INC. (SWWT) SCIENCE COMMITTEE
J. Val Klump, Ph.D., Chairman ................ Director and Senior Scientist,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Great Lakes WATER Institute,
Senior Scientist and Adjunct
Professor, Department of Biological
Sciences and Department
of Geosciences
Ezra Meyer, Vice-Chairman ............ Water Specialist, Clean Wisconsin

SWWT-Kinnickinnic River Watershed Action Team Co-chairs:
Benjamin Gramling, Director of Environmental Health Programs,
Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Benjamin P. Sykes, Foley and Lardner, LLP

SWWT-Menomonee River Watershed Action Team Co-Chairs:
Gail Epping Overholt, Milwaukee River
Basin Educator, UW-Extension
Cheryl Nenn, Riverkeeper, Milwaukee Riverkeeper

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special acknowledgements for discussion of ideas and concepts and
provision of data used in this report:

Stephen P. Adams.............. Public Involvement and Outreach Manager
Nancy M. Anderson, AICP ........... Chief Community Assistance Planner
Michael G. Hahn, PE, PH ....................... Chief Environmental Engineer
Christopher T. Hiebert, PE ...................... Chief Transportation Engineer
Elizabeth A. Larsen .................................................. Business Manager
John G. McDougall .............. Geographic Information Systems Manager
John R. Meland ..........................Chief Economic Development Planner
Dr. Donald M. Reed ......................................................... Chief Biologist
Donald P. Simon, RLS ..................................... Chief Planning Illustrator
William J. Stauber............................................. Chief Land Use Planner

Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Thomas M. Slawski, SEWRPC
Principal Planner, Mr. Ronald J. Printz, PE, Principal Engineer, Ms.
Sara W. Teske, Research Analyst, Mr. Michael B. Scott, GIS
Application Specialist, and Mr. Edward J. Schmidt, GIS Planning
Specialist, for their contributions to the conduct of this study and the
preparation of this report.

Chris Magruder ................................ Community Environmental Liaison,
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Breanne L. McDonald .......................... Water Resource & Sustainability
Specialist, Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Marsha Burzynski, ................................ Water Resources Management
Specialist, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Faith A. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., ...................................Research Hydrologist,
U.S. Geological Survey,
Wisconsin Water Science Center
Barbara C. Scudder ....................... Hydrologist (Biology)/Environmental
Program Coordinator,
U.S. Geological Survey,
Wisconsin Water Science Center
Jeffrey J. Steuer ........................... Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey,
Wisconsin Water Science Center
Robert C. Anderson, Ph.D. .................... Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran
College Biology Department
Morgan A. Schneider, ................... Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey,
Wisconsin Water Science Center
Thomas R. Sear, PE, CFM .............................. Senior Project Engineer,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH)
Kimberly Gleffe ......................................................... Executive Director,
River Revitalization Foundation
Cheryl Nenn ...................................................................... Riverkeeper,
Milwaukee Riverkeeper

MEMORANDUM REPORT
NUMBER 194

STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS AND
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE KINNICKINNIC
AND MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHEDS: 2000-2009

Prepared by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive
P.O. Box 1607
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607
www.sewrpc.org

Preparation of this report was funded in part by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

January 2010

$10.00

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Page
Chapter I—INTRODUCTION ........................
Background .........................................................
Project Identification, Development,
and Prioritization .......................................

1
1

Chapter II—INVENTORY FINDINGS ..........
Introduction and Background ..............................
Stream System Characteristics ......................
Urban Development, Imperviousness,
and Hydrology ...........................................
What is Habitat? ............................................
Inventory Findings...............................................
Historical Conditions ....................................
Current Conditions ........................................
Kinnickinnic River .................................
Menomonee River ..................................
Biological Conditions ...................................
Channel Obstructions
or Fragmentation .................................
Existing Water Quality
Monitoring Information .............................

5
5
5

Chapter III—WATERSHED
TARGETS, OBJECTIVES, AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS .....................
Introduction .........................................................
Land-Based Measures ...................................
Instream-Based Measures .............................
Recommended Land-Based
Habitat Protection Actions ...............................
Riparian Corridors ........................................
Corridor Target 1 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Corridor Target 2 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Corridor Target 3 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................

Potential Measures ...........................
Information Needs ............................
Hydrology ......................................................
Hydrology Target 1 .................................
Issue ..................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Water Quality and Quantity...........................
Water Quality and Quantity Target 1 ......
Issue ..................................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Land-Based Monitoring
and Information ..........................................
Monitoring and Information Target 1 .....
Issue ..................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Instream Habitat Protection Measures .................
Aquatic Organism Passage ............................
Aquatic Organism Passage Target 1 .......
Issue ..................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Information Needs ............................
Aquatic Habitat..............................................
Aquatic Habitat Target 1 .........................
Issue ..................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Information Needs ..................................
Aquatic Organisms ........................................
Aquatic Organism Target 1 .....................
Issue ..................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions.....................
Potential Measures ...........................

3

9
16
17
17
21
21
22
24
28
34

37
37
37
38
41
57
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
59
59
iii

60
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
66
69
69
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71

Page

Page
Instream Monitoring and
Informational Programming ......................
Target......................................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Recreation .....................................................
Recreation Target 1 ................................
Issue ........................................................
Key Questions ........................................
Objectives ........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Sampling Parameters and Methodologies ...........

Habitat Assessment .......................................
Biological Assessment...................................
Fisheries ..................................................
Invertebrates............................................
Algae .......................................................
Hydrological Assessment........................
Additional Monitoring
and Evaluation Parameters
to Consider .................................................
Ancillary recommendations .................................
Summary and Synthesis ......................................
Priority Actions to Improve Habitat ..............
Kinnickinnic River Watershed ................
Menomonee River Watershed.................
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee
River Watersheds.................................

72
72
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
76
76

76
77
78
78
78
79
79
80
81
82
82
82
83

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A

Page
List of River Cleanup Sites within the Milwaukee, Menomonee,
and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds: Spring 2009 ...........................................................................

87

B

Residential Yard Care Fact Sheet to Improve Water Quality and the Environment ........................

93

C

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and University of Wisconsin-Extension
Rain Garden Design and Construction Manual for Residential Homeowners .................................

103

D

Road/Stream Crossing Inspection Protocol Data Sheet....................................................................

137

E

Qualitative Fish Habitat Rating Protocols for Small and Large Wadable Streams ..........................

143

F

Protocols for Studying Wet Weather Impacts and Urbanization Patterns ........................................

149

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page
Chapter II

1
2
3
4

Physical and Biological Conditions along Reaches
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 ......................................................................
Physical and Biological Conditions along Reaches
within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2000-2009 .....................................................................
Approximate Percentage of Connected Impervious
Surfaces Created By Urban Development ........................................................................................
Average Trophic-Level Rankings and Aggregate Bioassessment Ranking
Among Stream Sites within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds: 2004-2005 .................................
iv

6
7
10
27

Table
5
6
7

Page
Fish, Invertebrate, and Habitat Quality Among Reaches
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 ......................................................................
Fish Species Composition Among Reaches in the
Menomonee River Watershed: 1902-1999 vs. 2000-2009 ...............................................................
Fish Species Composition Among Reaches in the
Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 1902-1999 vs. 2000-2009 ..............................................................

28
30
33

Chapter III
8

Fish Passage Assessment At Road Crossing Structures, Calculated Stream Length between
Structures, and Biological (fish, invertebrate) and Habitat Quality Determinations Among
Mainstem and Tributary Reaches within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 ................

42

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page
Chapter II

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Typical Stream Network Patterns Based on Horton’s Classification System ..................................
Relation between Recovery Time and Sensitivity to Disturbance for
Different Hierarchical Spatial Scales Associated with Stream Systems ..........................................
A Comparison of Hydrographs Before and After Urbanization .......................................................
What Has Been Learned from Bioretention and Rain Garden Studies? ...........................................
Comparison of Total Phosphorus Concentrations Among Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and
Stormwater Outfall Discharges within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds ....................................
Comparison of Total Suspended Solids Concentrations Among Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and
Stormwater Outfall Discharges within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds ....................................
Predicted and Observed Chloride Concentrations At 70th Street
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2008-2009 ......................................................................
Examples of Trash and Debris within the
Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds ..................................................................
Schematic Diagram Depicting the Relationship between Land Use,
Hydrology, Water Quality, Habitat Quality, and Ecological Health ................................................
Examples of a Combination of Channel Enclosure, Concrete Channel
Lining, and Drop Structures Engineered for Floodwater Control
within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds .................................................
Underwood Creek Flood Mitigation and
Stream Restoration Pre- and Post-Construction ...............................................................................
Example of Channel Erosion Downstream of Concrete Lining on Lyons
Park Creek (within Reach KK-1) within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed...................................
Examples of Excessive Streambed and Streambank Erosion
Conditions within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ......................................................................
Outfall Treatments Constructed As Part of the Underwood Creek
Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project: 2009 ..................................................................
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Scores Compared to Percent
Urban Land Use Among Sites in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds ............................................
A Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI-10) Compared to Percent
Urban Land Use Among Sites in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds ............................................
v

8
9
11
12
13
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
26

Figure
17
18
19
20
21
22

Page
Concrete Lining in the Menomonee River Watershed near the
Canadian Pacific Railway Bridge from River Mile 3.62 to 4.24......................................................
Menomonee Falls Dam in the Menomonee River Watershed At River Mile 21.93.........................
Adult Salmon Migrating from Lake Michigan Trying to Swim
through the Excessive Velocities within the Concrete Lining of
the Menomonee River Watershed Downstream of River Mile 4.24 ................................................
Concrete Lining in the Kinnickinnic River Watershed within Reach KK-10 ..................................
Restoration of Excessive Streambank and Streambed Erosion and
Reconnection of Floodplain within the Menomonee River At Hoyt Park .......................................
Pre- versus Post- Concrete Channel and Drop Structure Removal/Stream
Restoration near N. 43rd Street and W. State Street along the Menomonee River ..........................

29
29
32
34
35
36

Chapter III
23
24
25
26

Instream Three-Tier Prioritization Strategy within the Menomonee River Watershed ....................
Instream Three-Tier Prioritization Strategy within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ...................
Fish Passage Obstructions within the Menomonee River Watershed between
Swan Boulevard and Harmonee Avenue within the Menomonee River: 2009 ................................
Downstream Reaches within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds..............

39
40
67
70

LIST OF MAPS
Map

Page
Chapter II

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Mainstem Reaches, Tributary Reaches, and Assessment
Points within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 ...................................
Mainstem Reaches, Tributary Reaches, and Assessment
Points within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 ..................................
Historical versus Current Stream Channel Alignments
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 1836 and 2005 ..............................
Historical versus Current Stream Channel Alignments
within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 1836 and 2005 .............................
Stream Channel and Biological Quality Conditions
within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2000-2009 ....................................
Riparian Corridor and Plant Community Conditions
within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 .............................................
Riparian Corridor Conditions and Groundwater Recharge
Potential within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 ..............................
Stream Channel and Biological Quality Conditions
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 .....................................
Riparian Corridor and Plant Community Conditions
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 ..............................................
Riparian Corridor Conditions and Groundwater Recharge
Potential within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 ...............................
Point Source Outfall Locations and Water Quality Monitoring
Station Locations within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 .................
Point Source Outfall Locations and Water Quality Monitoring
Station Locations within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 ................
vi

Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III

Map

Page
Chapter III

13
14
15
16

Proposed Priority Protection Areas within
the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 .........................................................
Proposed Priority Protection Areas within
the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 ........................................................
Recreational Corridor Trails and Priority Protection Areas
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2009 ..............................................
Recreational Corridor Trails and Priority Protection Areas
within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 2009 .............................................

vii

Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III
Following Chapter III

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) is the State-designated and Federally
recognized areawide water quality planning agency with responsibility for preparation of a regional water quality
management plan for the seven-county Southeastern Wisconsin Region. In this capacity, the Commission
prepared and adopted the first areawide water quality management plan for the Southeastern Wisconsin Region in
1979.1 This plan has been amended, refined, and updated since 1979 with the most recent major plan amendment
being documented in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50 (PR No. 50), A Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, which was completed in 2007.2 From the outset, SEWRPC
has approached the process of developing a regional water quality management plan, and all subsidiary plans,
within a watershed framework, incorporating regional land use planning, public involvement, and application of
sound science. This plan, based upon a five year data gathering, analysis, and interpretation effort that is
summarized in SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39 (TR No. 39), Water Quality Conditions and Sources of
Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, continues this long-standing tradition.3
Key elements in the PR No. 50 planning process included:

Application of updated land use, demographic, and economic data through the year 2000, and updated
planned land use, demographic, and economic data through the plan year 2035;

Coordination with, and incorporation of, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
2020 facilities plan;

_____________
1

SEWRPC Planning Report No. 30, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin–
2000, Volume One, Inventory Findings, September 1978; Volume Two, Alternative Plans, February 1979; and
Volume Three, Recommended Plan, June 1979.
2

SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007.

3

SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee
River Watersheds, November 2007.

Consideration of historical and existing surface water and groundwater conditions as the basis for
formulating and refining recommendations for actions to continue to improve fishery and water-based
recreational conditions—including extensive consideration of riparian buffers (Appendix O), and
criteria and guidelines for stream crossings to allow fish passage and allow stream stability
(Appendix P), as well as consideration of sediment remediation as part of dam removal, stream corridor management as an element of aquatic and terrestrial fish and wildlife management, restoration of
connectivity along streams, and re-naturalization of stream hydrology;

Identification of sources of water pollution under existing and future land use conditions;

Utilization of simulation models;

Review of the existing legal structure governing the management and mitigation of the sources of
pollution;

Review of technological options and management for management and mitigation;

Refinement of planning objectives, principles, and standards;

Participation of multiple stakeholder groups, including both governmental and nongovernmental
organizations.

The Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT),4 is a new umbrella organization that was formed in
response to the recommendations set forth in PR No. 50. The SWWT is a nongovernmental, voluntary
organization dedicated to promoting and encouraging the protection and improvement of water quality in the
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The SWWT operates through a committee structure that includes: Executive
Steering Council, Science Committee, Policy Committee, Watershed Action Teams, and Ad Hoc Committees.
The Science Committee of the SWWT formed the Habitat Subcommittee (hereinafter, the Subcommittee) at their
meeting on May 14, 2009. It was requested that the SEWRPC staff serve as the Chair of the Subcommittee, which
was formed to address habitat issues related to the preparation by MMSD and SWWT of watershed restoration
plans (WRPs) for the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. The Subcommittee was tasked with
developing recommendations for conserving and restoring fisheries and wildlife habitat within the Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Specific tasks assigned to the Subcommittee included:

Characterizing existing instream and riparian physical and biological conditions based on SEWRPC
TR No. 39;

Defining habitat, including consideration of factors that influence habitat quality;

Identifying data gaps and information needs;

Identifying potential habitat restoration projects that would be expected to positively influence the
overall aquatic ecosystem based on existing information; and

Recommending future habitat data collection and analysis, and possible additional planning
requirements, after the WRPs are completed.

_____________
4

Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT), http://www.swwtwater.org/home/.

2

This report expands on habitat-related information set forth in PR No. 50 and includes fishery, invertebrate, and
habitat data gathered since completion of that plan up to the year 2009. Specifically, this report is intended to
provide the Science Committee members with a basis to understand the quality and extent of habitat, limitations
to habitat, and project prioritization strategies to improve habitat and the resultant fisheries within the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. This report provides the basis for integration of habitat-related
recommendations in the WRPs. This document summarizes data, research, and information gathered among
numerous formal and informal meetings with the Science Committee, SWWT Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
River Watershed Action Teams, MMSD, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), nongovernmental agencies, and various university faculties held between May through
November 2009.
Project Identification, Development, and Prioritization
This report presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. It includes descriptive information pertaining to the historical
trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and ecological integrity, bank
stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources. To the extent that instream biological
conditions are a reflection of channel conditions and structures, and to the extent that channel conditions are a
reflection of riparian corridor conditions, either existing or historical, this report is based on the instream surveys
completed during the process of data gathering associated with the regional water quality management plan
update. This monitoring data was provided by WDNR, USGS, MMSD, and Wisconsin Lutheran College. This
report is intended to provide a strategic framework for decision-making for the purpose of protecting and
improving recreation, water quality, and fisheries. Specifically, it summarizes the biological and habitat quality
within each watershed; identifies factors potentially limiting the aquatic community and habitat quality; identifies
information needs; provides recommended goals, objectives, and actions to address the impairments; recommends
a prioritization strategy to maximize project cost effectiveness; and recommends post-project monitoring to assess
project success.

3

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter II

INVENTORY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The water-resource and water-resource-related problems of a watershed, as well as the ultimate solutions to those
problems, are a function of the human activities within the watershed and of the ability of the underlying natural
resource base to sustain those activities. Regional water quality management planning seeks to rationally direct
the future course of human actions within the watershed so as to promote the conservation and wise use of the
natural resource base. Accordingly, two recently completed and separate regional planning documents, SEWRPC
Technical Report No. 39 (TR No. 39), Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds, November 2007, and SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50 (PR No. 50), A Regional Water
Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007, have thoroughly
described both the natural resource base and the man-made features of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds, thereby establishing a factual base upon which the refined local watershed restoration planning
process undertaken by the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc., with funding from the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District could proceed. A more thorough description of the natural and human-made
features of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds can be found on the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) website (www.sewrpc.org).
The following sections present a summary of important stream characteristics and their relationship to agricultural
and urban development, as well as an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Included is descriptive information pertaining to the historical
trends and current status of habitat (physical and biological) quality and ecological integrity within the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, bank and bed stability evaluation, riparian buffer analysis, and
potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources.
Stream System Characteristics
Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into streams by one of two pathways: 1) either directly flowing overland
as surface water runoff or 2) infiltrating into the soil surface, recharging the groundwater, and eventually reaching
streams as baseflow. Ephemeral, or intermittent, streams generally flow only during the wet season or during
large rainfall events. Perennial streams that flow year-round are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry
periods. The surface water drainage systems within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds contain
totals of about 142 and 31 miles of both perennial and ephemeral streams, respectively, as shown on Maps 1
and 2. Maps 1 and 2 show the modeling assessment points and reaches for the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds. The reaches for the Menomonee River watershed range from MN-1 through MN19 and from KK-1 through KK-11 for the Kinnickinnic River watershed (see Tables 1 and 2). These reaches form
the basis for the summary statistics and recommendations in this report.
5

6

Table 1
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ALONG REACHES WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Mainstem Reaches and Subwatersheds
MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

MN-19

4.64
7.33

6.22
8.20

5.13
5.71

3.31
5.70

18.48
18.86

5.69
3.44

5.66
4.16

3.48
4.88

4.86
7.45

5.43
3.46

6.13
6.68

10.87
8.70

7.78
10.10

11.89
11.95

1.20
2.53

8.99
4.02

2.04
2.18

8.24
4.22

3.59
2.10

43.74
37.10

Streambed Conditions

Degrading (miles)
Degrading (percent)
Aggrading (miles)
Aggrading (percent)
Bedrock (miles)
Bedrock (percent)
Concrete Lining (miles)
Concrete Lining (percent)
Enclosed Channel (miles)
Enclosed Channel (percent)

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.52
5.11
1.21
11.90
0
0
0
0
0.76
7.52

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0.66
15.63
0.26
6.16
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1.07
91.06
0
0

0
0
0.18
4.47
0
0
2.63
65.34
0.14
3.48

0
0
0.27
3.1
0.12
1.38
4.41
50.81
2.44
28.11

0
0
0.96
21.38
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.12
1.39
0.69
8.00
0.31
3.60
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0.06
0.98
0
0
0
0

0.07
3.10
0
0
0.08
3.55
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0.42
8.11
0.85
16.42
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.71
<1
3.97
<1
1.25
<1
8.96
<1
3.34
<1

Streambank Conditions

Proportion of Total Stream Length Assessed (percent)
Total Length of Eroding bank (miles)
Proportion Eroding (percent)

NA
NA
NA

2
0
0

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

2
0
0

0.1
0
0

54
0.85
8

100
2.45
71

100
0.05
1

28
0
0

62
0.25
5

34
0
0

60
0.19
5

100
0.23
3

45
0.43
10

72
0.92
11

77
0.41
21

100
0.25
4

100
0.26
12

100
0.17
3

100
0.00
0.00

17
6.45
45

Obstructions

Dam and Drop Structures (number)
Road Crossings – Culverts and Bridges (number)
Total Obstructions (number)
Total Obstructions – Road/Rail Crossings, Culverts,
Bridges, Dams, Drop Structures (number/mile)

0
8
8
1.8

0
5
5
2.2

0
14
14
3.9

0
3
3
1.1

1
15
16
4.9

0
8
8
3.5

0
31
31
3.0

0
16
16
4.7

0
9
9
2.3

1
8
9
3.7

3
21
24
6.1

0
5
5
2.9

6
20
26
6.9

15
21
36
4.8

0
10
10
2.3

3
21
24
3.0

0
5
5
2.3

1
10
11
2.7

5
8
13
6.0

1
21
22
5.2

0
10
10
4.8

36
269
305
8.2

Point Source Outfall Locations

Noncontact Cooling Water Permits (number)
Individual Permits (number)
SSO (number)
CSO (number)
Stormwater Outfalls (number)
Point Source Outlet Totals (number)
Stormwater Outfalls (number/mile)
Point Source Outlets (number/mile)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.4

1
0
0
0
3
4
0.8
1.1

1
0
0
0
6
7
2.1
2.5

7
0
0
0
10
17
3.1
5.2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

12
1
1
0
27
41
2.6
3.9

0
0
0
0
8
8
2.3
2.3

0
0
4
0
13
17
3.3
4.3

0
0
3
0
9
12
3.7
4.9

0
0
2
0
5
7
1.3
1.8

2
0
3
0
12
17
6.9
9.8

2
1
8
0
4
15
1.1
4.0

2
1
9
0
38
50
5.0
6.6

1
0
2
0
50
53
11.3
12.0

3
1
3
0
20
27
2.5
3.4

2
0
0
0
5
7
2.3
3.3

8
0
8
0
7
23
1.7
5.7

1
0
4
0
0
5
0.0
2.3

11
3
7
8
14
43
3.3
10.2

8
1
0
21
5
35
2.4
16.7

62
8
54
29
236
389
1.2
2.7

Riparian Buffersa

Proportion of Total Stream Length that Riparian Buffers
were Assessed (percent)
Riparian Buffers <75 Feet wide (percent)
Riparian Buffers >75 Feet wide (percent)

91

93

85

95

98

95

92

96

94

28

54

40

57

70

84

94

71

100

93

91

100

85

50
50

27
73

33
67

43
57

36
64

71
29

52
48

72
28

54
46

100
0

52
48

50
50

77
23

72
28

59
41

59
41

26
74

47
53

34
66

94
6

100
0

45
40

Plant Community Assessmentb

FQI – Very Poor (number sites)
FQI – Poor (number sites)
FQI – Fair (number sites)
FQI – Fairly Good (number sites)
FQI – Good (number sites)
Total (number)

0
0
0
1
0
1

1
0
0
1
1
3

3
1
1
0
0
5

1
1
0
0
2
4

0
0
0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
3
3
5
0
13

0
1
1
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
1
1

0
1
0
1
2

1
1
1
2
0
5

1
2
1
0
0
4

0
2
1
1
1
5

0
1
1
0
1
3

0
1
2
0
0
3

0
5
0
2
2
9

1
0
0
0
1
2

0
1
1
2
0
4

0
1
0
1
0
2

1
1
2
0
1
5

0
0
0
0
0
0

11
22
14
17
10
74

Monitoring Stations

Milwaukee River Keepers – Level 1c
Milwaukee River Keepers – Level 2c
Milwaukee River Keepers – Thermal
MMSD Surface Water Quality Monitoring Sites
MMSD Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Sites
USGS Level Gauge Stations
USGS Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Precipitation Gauges

0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
3
0
0
1
1

3
1
0
5
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
1
0
0
5
0

0
7
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1

1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1

13
12
7
24
0
1
10
7

0
0
0
0

Honey Creek

8.32
14.63

Underwood
Creek–Upper

3.75
6.16

Dousman Ditch

Area (square miles)
Total Stream Length (miles)

Physical, Biological, or Programmatic Component

Butler Ditch

Stream Channel Conditions

Parameters

Willow Creek

Menomonee
River–Lowerd

MN-16

Menomonee
River–Lowerc

MN-14

Menomonee
River–Lowerb

MN-14A

Menomonee
River–Lowera

MN-13

Menomonee
River–Upperd

MN-13A

Menomonee
River–Upperc

MN-8

Menomonee
River–Upperb

MN-7

Underwood
Creek–Lower

MN-11

South Branch
Underwood Creek

MN-10

Lilly Creek

West Branch
Menomonee River

MN-6

Little Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River–Uppera

MN-4

Little Menomonee
Creek

MN-3

Nor-X-Way Channel

MN-2

North Branch
Menomonee River

Tributary Reaches and Subwatersheds
MN-1

Watershed
Total

a
Riparian buffer segments includes separate buffer widths for the right bank and left bank.
b
The following qualities were assigned to the Floristic Quality Index (10-19 = Very Poor, 20-29 = Poor, 30-39 = Fair, 40-49 = Fairly Good, 50-59 = Good).
c
Level-1 volunteers conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using WDNR equipment and protocols for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and
temperature (using automated programmable temperature data loggers).
Source: SEWRPC.

Table 2
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ALONG REACHES WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Tributary Reaches and Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches and Subwatersheds

Kinnickinnic
River–Lower

KK-11

Kinnickinnic
River–Middle

KK-10
(includes KK-9)

Kinnickinnic
River–Upper

KK-3

South 43rd
Street Ditch

KK-2

Lyons Park
Creek

KK-1

Cherokee Park
Creek

KK-7

Villa Mann
Creek

KK-6

Holmes Avenue
Creek

KK-5

Wilson Park
Creek–Lower

KK-8

Wilson Park
Creek–Upper

KK-4

Stream Channel Conditions

Area (square miles)
Total Stream Length (miles)

3.47
6.95

3.56
5.17

1.72
2.64

1.32
1.66

0.96
2.23

1.33
1.46

1.71
1.50

2.62
2.90

4.33
2.82

3.63
3.20

25
31

Streambed Conditions

Concrete Lined Channel (miles)
Concrete Lined Channel (percent)
Enclosed Channel (miles)
Enclosed Channel (percent)

1.13
16
3.31
48

1.94
37
1.14
22

1.15
44
1.31
50

0.56
34
0.41
25

0
0
0.73
33

0.46
32
0.38
26

0
0
0.61
40

1.03
32
0.20
7

2.39
85
0.01
1

0
0
0.00
0

9
28
8
27

Streambank Conditions

Proportion of Total Stream Length Assessed (percent)
Proportion Eroding (percent)

0
NA

25
36.3

0
NA

11
25.4

63
62.8

48
53.4

29
39.1

63
62.8

11
0

0
0

20
20

Obstructions

Dam and Drop Structures (number)
Road Crossings – Culverts and Bridges (number)
Total Obstructions – Road/Rail Crossings, Culverts,
Bridges, Dams, Drop Structures (number/mile)

0
8

0
11

0
3

3
8

1
5

10
9

0
3

1
9

0
14

0
8

15
78

3

3

1

16

3

15

3

3

5

3

55

Point Source Outfall Locations

Noncontact Cooling Water Permits (number)
Individual Permits (number)
SSO (number)
CSO (number)
Stormwater Outfalls (number)
Point Source Outlet Totals (number)
Stormwater Outfalls (number/mile)
Point Source Outlets (number/mile)

2
1
2
0
4
9
1.5
3.5

0
0
1
0
13
14
3.7
4.0

3
0
0
0
4
7
1.5
2.7

0
0
0
0
2
2
2.8
2.8

0
0
0
0
1
1
0.4
0.4

0
0
1
0
4
5
3.1
3.8

5
2
7
0
6
20
5.5
18.2

0
0
3
0
9
12
3.1
4.1

4
1
2
6
7
20
2.6
7.4

0
2
0
19
3
24
1.3
10.0

14
6
16
25
53
114
1.7
3.7

Proportion of Total Stream Length that Riparian Buffers
were Assessed (percent)
Riparian Buffers <75 Feet wide (percent)

41

73

47

75

70

79

31

83

88

56

62

100

90

100

100

81

90

100

73

77

84

88

Parameters

a
Riparian Buffers

a
Riparian Buffers continued

Physical, Biological, or Programmatic Component

Watershed
Total

Riparian Buffers >75 Feet wide (percent)

0

10

0

0

19

10

0

27

23

16

12

Plant Community Assessmentb

FQI – Poor (number sites)
FQI – Fair (number sites)
FQI – Fairly Good (number sites)
Total (number)

0
0
0
0

2
0
0
2

0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0

0
1
1
2

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

2
3
1
6

Monitoring Stations

Milwaukee River Keepers – Level 1c
Milwaukee River Keepers – Level 2c
Milwaukee River Keepers – Thermal
MMSD Surface Water Quality Monitoring Sites
MMSD Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Sites
USGS Level Gauge Stations
USGS Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Precipitation Gauges

1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0

1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0

0
2
0
3
1
1
0
1

0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1

3
3
3
8
1
5
0
3

a
Riparian buffer segments includes separate buffer widths for the right bank and left bank.
b
The following qualities were assigned to the Floristic Quality Index (10-19 = Very Poor, 20-29 = Poor, 30-39 = Fair, 40-49 = Fairly Good, 50-59 = Good).
c

Level-1 volunteers conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using WDNR equipment and protocols for pH,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature (using automated programmable temperature data loggers).
Source: SEWRPC.

7

Figure 1
TYPICAL STREAM NETWORK PATTERNS BASED
ON HORTON’S CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Source:

Oliver S. Owen and others, Natural Resource Conservation: Management for a Sustainable Future, and
SEWRPC.

Viewed from above, the network of water channels
that form a river system typically displays a branchlike pattern as shown in Figure 1. 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 in the downstream direction as
more and more tributary segments enter the main
channel. A classification system based on the position
of a stream within the network of tributaries, called
stream order, was developed by Robert E. Horton and
later modified by Arthur Strahler. In general, the
lower stream order numbers correspond to the smallest headwater tributaries and are shown as the Order 1
or first-order streams in Figure 1. Second-order
streams (Order 2) are those that have only first-order
streams as tributaries, and so on (see Figure 1). 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. It is important to note that
over 80 percent of the total length of Earth’s rivers
and streams are a headwater stream (first- and secondorder), which is also generally characteristic of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.

To better understand stream systems and what shapes
their conditions, it is important to understand the
effects of both spatial and temporal scales. Streams
can be theoretically subdivided into a continuum of
habitat sensitivity to disturbance and recovery time as shown in Figure 2.1 Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized
patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance and river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins, are least
susceptible. Furthermore, events that affect smaller-scale habitat characteristics may not affect larger-scale system
characteristics, whereas large disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. For example,
on a small spatial scale, deposition at one habitat site may be accompanied by scouring at another site nearby, and
the reach or segment does not appear to change significantly. In contrast, a large-scale disturbance, such as a
debris flood, is initiated at the segment level and reflected in all lower levels of the hierarchy (reach, habitat,
microhabitat). Similarly, on a temporal scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the
short term. However, if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.2 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream channelization due to
ditching and agricultural drainage practices, have resulted in longer term impacts throughout the study area.
The most important fundamental aspects of stream systems are 1) that the entire fluvial system is a continuously
integrated series of physical gradients in which the downstream areas are longitudinally linked and dependent
_____________
1

C.A. Frissell and others, “A Hierarchical Framework for Stream Classification: Viewing Streams in a
Watershed Context,” Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 10, pages 199-214, 1986.
2

G.J. Niemi and others, “An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems From Disturbance,”
Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 14, pages 571-587, 1990.
8

Figure 2
RELATION BETWEEN RECOVERY TIME AND SENSITIVITY TO DISTURBANCE FOR
DIFFERENT HIERARCHICAL SPATIAL SCALES ASSOCIATED WITH STREAM SYSTEMS

Source: C.A. Frissell and others, “A Hierarchical Framework for Stream Habitat Classification: Viewing Streams in a
Watershed Context,” Environmental Management, Vol. 10, and SEWRPC.

upon the upstream areas; and 2) that streams are intimately connected to their adjacent terrestrial setting, that is,
the land-stream interaction is crucial to the functioning of stream ecosystem processes and this connectivity does
not diminish in importance with stream size. In this regard, land uses have a significant impact on stream channel
conditions and associated biological responses.3
Urban Development, Imperviousness, and Hydrology
The Kinnickinnic River watershed is nearly entirely built out and contained about 93 percent urban land in year
2000 (TR No. 39). Urban land use in the Menomonee River watershed is expected to increase from about
64 percent in year 2000 to approximately 76 percent in 2035 (TR No. 39 and PR No. 50). In the absence of
planning, such urbanization can create negative impacts on streams. Urbanization itself is not the main factor
driving the degradation of the local waterbodies. Streams can survive and flourish in urban settings. The main
factors leading to the degradation of urban waterbodies are the creation of large areas of connected impervious
surfaces, the lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of runoff,
_____________
3

Lizhu Wang and others, “Influences of Watershed Land Use on Habitat Quality and Biotic Integrity in Wisconsin
Streams,” Fisheries, Volume 22, No. 6, June 1997; Jana S. Stewart and others, “Influences of Watershed,
Riparian-Corridor, and Reach-Scale Characteristics on Aquatic Biota in Agricultural Watersheds,” Journal of
the American Water Resources Association, Volume 37, No. 6, December 2001; Faith A. Fitzpatrick and others,
“Effects of Multi-Scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in Eastern Wisconsin,”
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 37, No. 6, December 2001.
9

Table 3
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF
CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
CREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Type of Urban Development

Impervious Surface
(percent)

Two-Acre Residential ..........................
One-Acre Residential ..........................
One-Half-Acre Residential...................
One-Third-Acre Residential .................
One-Fourth-Acre Residential ..............
One-Eighth-Acre Residential ...............
Industrial ..............................................
Commercial .........................................

10-15
15-25
20-30
25-35
35-45
60-70
70-80
85-90

Source:

B.K. Ferguson, Introduction to Stormwater: Concept,
Purpose, Design, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.

proximity of development to waterbodies, loss of
natural areas, and inadequate construction erosion
controls. These factors increase the potential for the
occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity
effects associated with urbanization. Good land use
planning, creative site design, and the application of
best management practices for construction site erosion
control and post-construction stormwater management
can greatly reduce the potential for urban development
to negatively affect the surrounding environment.
Industrial and commercial land uses have significantly
more impervious area than most residential land uses.
Furthermore, smaller residential lots create more
impervious surfaces than larger residential lots.
Table 3 lists the approximate amount of impervious
surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial,
and governmental and institutional development.

Although commercial and industrial developments create a larger percentage of impervious surfaces, residential
developments, where lawns are the single largest use of land area, present different concerns. Lawns are
considered pervious, but they do show some similarities to impervious surfaces. When lawns are compared to
woodlands and cropland, they are found to contain less soil pore space (up to 15 percent less than cropland and
24 percent less than woodland) available for the infiltration of water. In many instances, considerable soil
compaction occurs during grading activities, significantly reducing the perviousness of lawns. Native grasses,
forbs, and sedges have significantly deeper root systems than turf grass, which loosen the soil and create flow
channels that increase infiltration capacity. Also, owing to excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides on
urban lawns, they typically produce higher unit loads of nutrients and pesticide than does cropland.4
When a new commercial or residential development is built near a stream, the area in driveways, rooftops,
sidewalks, and lawns increases; while native plants and undisturbed soils decrease; and the ability of the
shoreland area to perform its natural functions (flood control, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic
beauty) is decreased. In the absence of mitigating measures, urbanization impacts the watershed, not only by
altering the ratio between stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, but also through the changing of stream
hydrology (i.e., increasing stormwater runoff volumes and peak flows and altering the baseflow regime) and
through divergence of the seasonal thermal regimes away from their historical patterns (see Figure 3). These
changes further influence other characteristics of the stream, such as channel morphology, water quality/quantity,
and biological diversity. More specifically, recent research has shown that average flow magnitude, high flow
magnitude, high flow event frequency, high flow duration, and rate of change of stream cross-sectional area were
the hydrological variables most consistently associated with changes in algal, invertebrate, and fish communities.5
When urban development increases, the area of impervious surfaces increases proportionately to the decrease in
the amount of pervious surfaces. For this reason alone, many researchers throughout the United States, including
those at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), report that the amount of connected

_____________
4

Center for Watershed Protection, “Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems,” Watershed Protection
Research Monograph No. 1, March 2003, p. 7.
5

Personal Communication, Dr. Jeffrey J. Steuer, US Geological Survey.

10

Figure 3
A COMPARISON OF HYDROGRAPHS
BEFORE AND AFTER URBANIZATION

impervious surfaces is the best indicator of the level
of urbanization in a watershed.6 Connected impervious surfaces have a direct hydraulic connection to a
stormwater drainage system, and ultimately, to a
stream. The studies mentioned above have found that
relatively low levels of urbanization, 8 to 12 percent
connected impervious surface, can cause subtle
changes in physical (increased temperature and
turbidity) and chemical (reduced dissolved oxygen
and increased pollutant levels) properties of a stream
that may lead to a decline in the biological components of the stream. For example, each 1 percent
increase in watershed imperviousness can lead to an
increase in water temperature of about 0.25 degrees
Celsius.7 This temperature increase is small in magnitude, but even this small increase can have significant
impacts to fish and other members of the biological
community.

To some degree, impervious surface impacts can be
mitigated through implementation of traditional
stormwater management practices and emerging green
infrastructure technologies such as pervious pavement, green roofs, rain gardens, bioretention, and
infiltration facilities. Traditional stormwater management practices seek to manage runoff using a variety
of measures, including detention, retention, conveyance, and infiltration. Emerging technologies, in contrast, differ from traditional stormwater practices in
Source: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
that they seek to better mimic the disposition of
(FISRWG), Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices, October 1998.
precipitation on an undisturbed landscape by retaining
and infiltrating stormwater onsite. There are a number
of nontraditional emerging technologies that have
been implemented throughout the greater Milwaukee
watersheds that include disconnection of downspouts, installation of rain barrels, green roofs, and rain gardens, as
well as constructing biofiltration swales in parking lots and along roadways and application of low impact
development (LID) measures. Recent experience has shown that these emerging technologies can be effective.
For example, recent research has demonstrated that bioretention systems can work in clayey soils with proper
sizing, remain effective in the winter, and contribute significantly to groundwater recharge, especially when such
facilities utilize native prairie plants (see Figure 4).8
_____________
6

L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman, “Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish Across
Multiple Spatial Scales,” Environmental Management, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 255-266.

7

L. Wang, J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl, “Impacts of Urban Land Cover on Trout Streams in Wisconsin and
Minnesota, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 132, 2003, pp. 825-839.
8

Roger Bannerman, WDNR and partners; Menasha biofiltration retention research project, Middleton, WI, 2008;
N.J. LeFevre, J.D. Davidson, and G.L. Oberts, Bioretention of Simulated Snowmelt: Cold Climate Performance
and Design Criteria, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2008; William R. Selbig and Nicholas
Balster, Evaluation of Turf Grass and Prairie Vegetated Rain Gardens in a Clay and Sand Soil: Madison,
Wisconsin, Water Years 2004-2008, In cooperation with the City of Madison and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, USGS Scientific Investigations Report, in draft.
11

Figure 4
WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED FROM BIORETENTION AND RAIN GARDEN STUDIES?

Source: Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and SEWRPC.

In the absence of mitigating measures, one of the consequences of urban development is the increase in the
amount of stormwater, which runs off the land, instead of infiltrating into the groundwater. A parking lot or
driveway produces much more runoff than an undisturbed meadow or agricultural hay field. Depending on the
degree of watershed impervious cover, the annual volume of storm water runoff can increase by up to 16 times
that for natural areas.9 In addition, since impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow
is available to recharge groundwater. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall, baseflow levels are
often reduced in urban streams.10 This has been observed to occur in both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds. Furthermore, runoff traveling over a parking lot or driveway will pick up more heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, chlorides, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants than runoff traveling over surfaces that
allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to infiltrate. Runoff traveling over impervious surfaces bypasses the
filtering action of the soil particles, soil microbes, and vegetation present above (stems and leaves) and below
(roots) the soil surface. For example, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, MMSD staff observed that total phosphorus
and total suspended solids concentrations downstream of stormwater outfalls in the greater Milwaukee River
watersheds were significantly higher during the initial first flush of a rainfall event compared to later samples.

_____________
9

T. Schueler, “The importance of imperviousness,” Watershed Protection Techniques, Volume 1(3): 100-111,
1995.
10

D. Simmons and R. Reynolds, “Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long
Island, NY,” Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982.

12

Figure 5
COMPARISON OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AMONG
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOs), SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSOs), AND
STORMWATER OUTFALL DISCHARGES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

Figure 6
COMPARISON OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS AMONG
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOs), SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSOs), AND
STORMWATER OUTFALL DISCHARGES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

13

Figure 7
PREDICTED AND OBSERVED CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT
70TH STREET WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2008-2009

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

Figures 5 and 6 also illustrate important points relative to the Inline Storage System, or deep tunnel, that was
constructed by MMSD to reduce the number of sewer overflows: 1) post deep tunnel pollutant concentrations for
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have improved significantly compared to pre-tunnel conditions, 2) stormwater
pollutant concentrations of total suspended solids associated with the initial first flush during a storm are
equivalent or exceed pollutant concentrations in both CSOs and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and 3)
stormwater pollutant concentrations of total phosphorus associated with the first flush are similar, or slightly
greater, than pollutant concentrations in CSOs, but less than SSOs.
Figure 7 illustrate the connection or synergistic relationship between stream flashiness (water quantity) and
pollutant loadings (water quality) associated with urban stormwater runoff. This figure shows how observed
chloride concentrations and predicted concentrations based on associated total conductivity measurements in the
Menomonee River at N. 70th Street fluctuate in response to rainfall events and seasons. It is clear that this
location on the River is impacted by chlorides for extended periods during the winter (December through March).
There are both episodic periods of acute toxicity and extended periods of chronic toxicity at this location during
the winter. Additionally the fish index of biotic integrity score at this location is very poor. A variety of factors
are likely contributing to this result, with chloride concentrations being one of them. Based on this relatively new
real-time information, it is becoming clear that chloride impacts are not short lived; rather chronic toxicity
impacts can last most of the winter depending on snowfall and weather. This same relationship is also likely to be
the case for the Kinnickinnic River.11 In addition, researchers found that the high levels of imperviousness within
_____________
11

Personal communication, Chris Magruder, MMSD.

14

the Honey Creek and Kinnickinnic River watersheds were strongly associated with higher amounts of nonpoint
source pollutants that significantly affect fathead minnow reproductive behavior.12 The most striking results in
this study showed decreased sexual development in males, reduced average egg count by females, and reduced
number of breeding pairs.
Location of impervious surfaces also determines the degree of direct impact they will have upon a stream. There
is a greater impact from impervious surfaces located closer to a stream, due to the fact that there is less time and
distance for the polluted runoff to be naturally treated before entering the stream. A study of 47 watersheds in
southeastern Wisconsin found that one acre of impervious surface located near a stream could have the same
negative effect on aquatic communities as 10 acres of impervious surface located further away from the stream.13
Because urban lands located adjacent to streams have a greater impact on the biological community, an
assumption might be made that riparian buffer strips located along the stream could absorb the negative runoff
effects attributed to urbanization. Yet, riparian buffers may not be the complete answer since most urban
stormwater is delivered directly to the stream via a storm sewer or engineered channel and, therefore, enters the
stream without first being filtered by the buffer. Riparian buffers need to be combined with other management
practices, such as infiltration facilities, detention basins, and grass swales, in order to adequately mitigate the
effects of urban stormwater runoff. Combining practices into such a “treatment train” can provide a much higher
level of pollutant removal, than single, stand-alone practices could ever achieve. Stormwater and erosion
treatment practices vary in their function, which in turn influences their level of effectiveness. Location of a
practice on the landscape, as well as proper construction and continued maintenance, greatly influences the level
of pollutant removal.
An additional artifact of urbanization is the intentional and unintentional accumulation of trash and debris in
waterways and associated riparian lands, including those within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds (see Figure 8). These accumulations of trash are unsightly, as well as posing potential human health
concerns. Trash and debris can cause physical and/or chemical (i.e. toxic) damage to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife. In some cases, historical fill, ranging from abandoned vehicles to gasoline pumps can be found within
the riparian corridors adjacent to the waterways within the Menomonee River watershed.14 Sometimes debris can
accumulate to such an extent that it may limit recreation and the passage of aquatic organisms and/or cause
streambank erosion. Although there has not been a comprehensive survey of trash and debris conditions within
riparian areas of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, continued efforts to remove trash and debris
within these watersheds by the River Skimmer project, Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, and Milwaukee
Riverkeeper cleanup projects (see Appendix A for list of cleanup sites) indicates that this is an important issue to
consider for the protection of these watersheds.15

_____________
12

D. Weber and R. Bannerman, “Relationships between impervious surfaces within a watershed and measures of
reproduction in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas),” Hydrobiologia, Volume 525:215-228, 2004.
13

L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman, “Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish Across
Multiple Spatial Scales,” Environmental Management, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 255-266.
14

Eddee Daniels, Urban Wilderness: Exploring a Metropolitan Watershed, University of Chicago Press,
September, 2008.

15

Note: The City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works owns and operates the River Skimmer boat in
partnership with MMSD, the Milwaukee Water Works, the Milwaukee Community Service Corps, and the Port of
Milwaukee. Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful and Milwaukee Riverkeeper organize annual river cleanups in the
greater Milwaukee River watersheds. In 2009, volunteers removed hundreds of thousands of pounds of garbage
out of waterways and surrounding land within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
15

Figure 8
EXAMPLES OF TRASH AND DEBRIS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AND KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHEDS
MENOMONEE RIVER (WITHIN REACH MN-19)

HONEY CREEK (WITHIN REACH MN-2)

S. 43RD STREET DITCH (WITHIN REACH KK-2)

EDGERTON CHANNEL (WITHIN REACH KK-4)

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

What is Habitat?
Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and hydrological variables.
Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species abundance and distributions within
aquatic systems, however, such interactions are beyond the scope of this report and are not considered further in
this document. Abiotic factors such as stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature,
dissolved oxygen concentrations, substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities
(fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat quality. For
example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high-quality habitat. It is important to
note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within a watershed, as well as to land use directly
adjacent to the streambank. Consequently, watershed size and associated land use characterization as well as
riparian buffer width are critical elements necessary in defining habitat quality.
16

As noted previously, urbanization increases impervious surface, which can lead to an increase in “flashiness” (or
the rate at which flow responds to a precipitation event). Such increases in streamflow subsequently affect
streambank stability, streambed stability, pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics, which, in turn, affect habitat
availability and quality. As detailed in TR No. 39, the Menomonee River watershed contains approximately 20
percent imperviousness and the Kinnickinnic River watershed contains about 30 to 40 percent imperviousness
based upon the amount of urban land development in year 2000. Therefore, the hydrology of the urban stream
systems within both watersheds is a major determinant of stream dynamics and is a vital component of habitat for
fishes and other organisms (see Figure 9).
Based upon this information and for purposes of this report, habitat has been divided into two separate elements
that distinguish “Land Based” versus “Instream” dimensions of habitat. The land based elements include a
number of features that include existing and planned land use, historical urban growth, stormwater runoff, riparian
buffers, and civil divisions, among others. However, the land based elements addressed specifically in this report
are focused on riparian buffer width and continuity, plant community quality, recreational opportunities, and
groundwater recharge potential within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Instream measures
addressed in this report include channelization, streambank and streambed stability, channel obstructions,
recreational opportunities, habitat quality, fishery quality, and invertebrate quality.

INVENTORY FINDINGS
Based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data obtained for years 2000 through 2009,
this section summarizes information by stream reaches for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds as
shown in Tables 1 and 2. This assessment was based upon a total of 94 fish samples, 39 invertebrate samples, and
55 habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by WDNR staff, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff, and
Dr. Robert Anderson of the Wisconsin Lutheran College. These samples were collected for a variety of purposes
and programs that include baseline monitoring by the WDNR, the MMSD Corridor Study Database Project, the
USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems
(EUSE) projects, and other research projects. It is important to note that the collection methods used were similar
and comparable for purposes of this report. The only samples not used in direct comparison were fisheries
samples collected with mini-boom shocking gear within the downstream reaches of the Menomonee River and
associated shipping canals. These data were used for species presence or absence information only.
Historical Conditions
Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary Area including the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers has been substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant
wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.16 This conversion allowed for
the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area that currently exists, but this conversion
has lead to significant environmental degradation in water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.17 Further
comparison of the earliest known survey of the entire Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River systems
completed in 1836 to the present channel conditions in 2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization
and diversion of stream channels over this time period (see Maps 3 and 4).

_____________
16

R. Poff and C. Threinen, Surface Water Resources of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Conservation Department,
Madison, Wisconsin, 1964.
17

Milwaukee River Estuary Area of Concern (AOC), http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/milwaukee.html#pagetop
17

Figure 9
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM DEPICTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LAND USE, HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, HABITAT QUALITY, AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

Straightening of meandering stream channels or “channelization” was once a widely used and accepted technique
in agricultural management. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation
Service) cost shared such activities up to the early 1970s within southeastern Wisconsin.18 The objectives of
channelization were to reduce floods by conveying stormwater runoff more rapidly, to facilitate drainage of low_____________
18

Personal Communication, Gene Nimmer, NRCS engineer.

18

Figure 10
EXAMPLES OF A COMBINATION OF CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, CONCRETE
CHANNEL LINING, AND DROP STRUCTURES ENGINEERED FOR FLOODWATER CONTROL
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AND KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHEDS
UNDERWOOD CREEK (WITHIN REACH MN-14)

LYONS PARK CREEK (WITHIN REACH KK-1)

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

lying agricultural land, and to allow more efficient farming in rectangular fields. Through channelization, farmers
attempted to protect their crops by increasing the velocity of water moving downstream and the rate at which
water drained away from their land. However, channelization rarely succeeds in increasing the speed of water
moving downstream for two main reasons; 1) waterways throughout the Southeastern Wisconsin Region often
have low slopes (i.e. slopes less than 1 percent), and 2) the effective slope within a reach that is channelized is
generally not changed, because slope within the channelized section is limited by the streambed elevation of
flatter, downstream reaches. These two factors combined with the fact that channelized reaches are often dredged
too deep and too wide, produce areas that are characterized by slow moving, stagnant waterways. Many
channelized reaches become long straight pools or areas of sediment deposition. Because the velocities within
these reaches are too low to carry suspended materials, sediment particles settle out and accumulate. This is why
many channelized reaches contain uniformly deep flocculent organic sediments. Channelization can also lead to
instream hydraulic changes that can decrease or interfere with surface water contact to overbank areas during
floods. This may result in reduced filtering of nonpoint source pollutants by riparian area vegetation and soils, as
well as increased erosion of the banks. Channelization can lead to increased water temperature, due to the loss of
riparian vegetation, and it can alter instream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and
deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating features,
generally lead to a diminished suitability of instream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife.
Historically, prevention of flooding problems has been the major focus of stormwater and floodland management
efforts in urban areas. This has led to channelization (both ditching and straightening), placement of concrete (to
promote conveyance of flood flows and to control flows as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed
channels) as shown in Figure 10, without consideration of habitat impacts in portions of both the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Concrete-lined stream segments are particularly damaging, due to the creation of
conditions that 1) fragment and limit linear and lateral connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and
ecosystem; 2) limit or prevent fish and wildlife movement; 3) increase water temperature; 4) destroy fish, aquatic
life and wildlife habitat; 5) limit recreational uses, including those attendant to navigation, fishing, and aesthetics;
and 6) may actually increase flooding and decrease public safety if not designed as part of an overall system plan.
Today, recognition of the value of lotic water resources and their multi-faceted contributions to quality of life has
19

Figure 11
UNDERWOOD CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION AND STREAM
RESTORATION PRE- AND POST-CONSTRUCTION
PRE-CONSTRUCTION SHOWING CONCRETE LINED
STREAMBED AND STREAMBANKS

POST-CONSTRUCTION SHOWING RESTORED FLOODPLAIN
CONNECTIVITY AND STREAM CHANNEL: 2009

Source: Thomas R. Sear, Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) and SEWRPC.

lead to programs to restore and recreate naturalized river systems that not only meet flood mitigation
requirements, but also incorporate features related to habitat and maintenance of aquatic life.
MMSD has completed a number of concrete and drop structure removal projects throughout the greater
Milwaukee watersheds over the last decade. The most recent project is located along Underwood Creek as shown
in Figure 11. That project involved removal of both concrete lining and drop structures.19 Stream stabilization and
flooding are important issues that must be addressed when removing concrete lining. Figure 12 shows how
increased stream velocities within a concrete lined section of channel on Lyons Park Creek within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed can impact downstream “natural” channels and cause excessive streambed and
streambank erosion. This is an example of why streambed and streambanks must be protected after concrete
lining is removed. Protecting the streambed and streambanks with some type of material increases stream channel
roughness relative to a smooth surface like concrete, which slows water down, increasing flood elevations and the
potential risk to nearby structures. To mitigate or offset the potential for increased flood risk, concrete removal
needs to be associated with mitigative measures such as expanding the floodplain to the lands adjacent to the
channel and lowering the ground elevation in the overbanks outside the low- and moderate-flow channel to allow
more room for attenuation and/or conveyance of flood flows. Such measures have the added benefit of decreasing
instream velocities for multiple flood stages and reducing streambed and streambank erosion. Expansion of the
floodplain also allows for the opportunity to restore connectivity with the stream channel, restore native riparian
vegetation, and allow space for a more naturally functioning stream channel, as well as providing stable instream
habitat.

_____________
19

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Underwood Creek Rehabilitation and Flood Management Project,
Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2006.
20

Figure 12

Current Conditions
Kinnickinnic River
EXAMPLE OF CHANNEL EROSION
The Kinnickinnic River system is comprised of about
DOWNSTREAM OF CONCRETE LINING ON
30 percent concrete lining and 30 percent enclosed
LYONS PARK CREEK (WITHIN REACH KK-1)
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
channel, with most of the remaining open stream
channel unstable and eroding (see Table 2 and
Map 5). A 2004 stream assessment report indicated
that the upper unchannelized sections of the Kinnickinnic River are severely incised (downcut or eroded
streambed) and laterally unstable (see Figure 13).20
Comparison of historic longitudinal profiles indicates
that up to four to five feet of incision has occurred
since the 1970s. This channel instability is due to a
combination of elements that include: a large amount
of urban development and associated impervious area,
a stormwater management system designed to move
runoff quickly and efficiently off the land surface and
into the stream; significant encroachment of urban
development near the stream, which confines flows
Note placement of large stone on the streambed and streambank to
within a narrow area and exposes the streambank and
mitigate excessive erosion due to high velocities.
streambed to extremely high velocities and shear
stresses; and steep slopes. The eroding streambed and
Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.
streambank areas as shown on Map 5 should be
addressed. A high degree of bank instability is
associated with extensive areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian buffers less than 75 feet in
width (see Table 2 and Map 6). Table 2 shows that more than 70 percent of the river corridors within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed contain buffers that are less than 75 feet in width. The Upper and Middle
subwatersheds of the Kinnickinnic River (KK-3, KK-10) contain the most highly buffered stream reaches with
about 27 and 23 percent, respectively, of the River having buffers greater than 75 feet in width. These areas are
located within Milwaukee County park land, and the Upper Kinnickinnic River also contains two of the six total
highest-quality vegetation communities in the entire watershed based upon their Floristic Quality Index (FQI),21
The Lower Wilson Park Creek (KK-8), Holmes Avenue Creek (KK-5), and Lyons Park Creek (KK-1)
subwatersheds also contain important plant community areas with fair to good-quality, which serve as important
wildlife refuge areas within the highly urbanized landscape (see Table 2 and Map 6). These park lands, natural
areas, and remaining environmental corridors also include areas with the best groundwater recharge potential
within the Kinnickinnic River watershed (see Map 7). Map 7 shows that developed areas are associated with the
lowest groundwater recharge potential; therefore, preservation and, where practical, expansion of open space
would protect, and perhaps enhance, the groundwater recharge potential within the watershed.

_____________
20

Milwaukee County, Milwaukee County Stream Assessment, Final Report, completed by Inter-Fluve, Inc.,
September, 2004.

21

Note that these ratings are approximate indications of plant community quality due to the following potential
limitations: 1)inventories in some cases date back 20 years and may not reflect current conditions and 2) data
collection methods may be different among sites, due to inventories being conducted for multiple purposes or only
partial inventories being conducted. For more information see T. Bernthal, Development of a Floristic Quality
Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin, Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V,
June 2003.
21

Figure 13
EXAMPLES OF EXCESSIVE STREAMBED AND STREAMBANK
EROSION CONDITIONS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

Stream widths in the Kinnickinnic River were noted as being 42 and 74 feet at the only two cross-sections
obtained by Inter-Fluve, Inc., under a study conducted for Milwaukee County. Stream widths in the remaining
subwatersheds generally ranged from about 10 to 30 feet in width.22 Substrates throughout the Kinnickinnic River
watershed were dominated by gravels and course sands. These large substrate sizes are consistent with high
velocity flows that occur throughout this watershed. However, not much instream physical information exists
within this watershed.
As previously summarized within TR No. 39 there are a total of 61 point sources identified within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed that include permitted noncontact cooling water discharges, permitted individual
discharges, CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. As shown in Table 2 these are predominantly located within the
mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River reaches KK-3, KK-10, and KK-11 of the watershed. There are an estimated
53 stormwater outfalls within this watershed, which comprise about 50 percent of the total outfalls observed. The
stormwater outfalls are not concentrated in any particular area, but are widely distributed throughout the
watershed. These outfalls are far more numerous than any other type of outfall in the watershed. In addition, since
these stormwater outfalls discharge during most rainfall events and during periods of snowmelt, as opposed to
only a few events a year when CSOs may occur, their potential for water quality impacts is significant. The
physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to streambed and/or banks,
especially if they are constructed at poor angles in relationship to the flow of the river or stream. These outfalls
can be retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among other strategies. It is
also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration practices, as well as
protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. For example, Figure 14 shows two outfalls where infiltration
and streambank protection treatments were constructed as part of the Underwood Creek stream restoration project
in the Menomonee River watershed.
Menomonee River
The Menomonee River system, including tributaries, has about 6 percent concrete-lined channel and 2 percent
enclosed channel (see Table 1). The highest amounts of concrete lined channel are located within the Honey
_____________
22

Ibid.

22

Figure 14
OUTFALL TREATMENTS CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
FLOOD MITIGATION AND STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT: 2009

Mixture of rock to
protect from erosion
and promote infiltration
Shallow basin with rock
protection to dissipate high
high energy flows

Grassy swales

Streambank with stone
and fabric protection

NOTE: This project has not yet been completed and more native tree, shrub, and wetland plantings will be implemented in the year 2010.
Source: SEWRPC.

Creek (MN-16) and Underwood Creek (MN-14) subwatersheds. With the exception of the Lilly Creek
subwatershed, the majority of the stream system is in open channel and largely stable, with limited localized areas
of erosion, as shown on Map 8. The streambanks along Lilly Creek and two tributaries (MN-7) are unstable, with
more than 70 percent of the assessed streambanks being classified as eroded, whereas assessed streambanks in the
remaining subwatersheds are generally less than 20 percent eroded. Research has indicated that high-quality
streams have less than 20 percent of their total stream bank lengths severely eroded. Streams with less than
20 percent severe streambank erosion have been found to maintain a high-quality fishery.23 However, all of the
eroding streambed and streambank areas as shown on Map 8 should be addressed, since such erosion may still
cause significant habitat degradation. The relatively small amount of streambed and streambank erosion
is consistent with a high amount of protection from riparian buffers greater than 75 feet in width throughout
the Menomonee River watershed (see Table 1 and Map 9). Table 1 shows that at least 50 percent or more of
the river corridors among the subwatersheds within the Menomonee River watershed are protected by
riparian buffers that are greater than 75 feet in width. However, in the Lilly Creek (MN-7), Little Menomonee
Creek (MN-10), Dousman Ditch (MN-13A), Underwood Creek (MN-14), Honey Creek (MN-16) and
_____________
23

T. D. Simonson and others, Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin Streams, U.S. Department of
Agriculture,” General Technical Report NC-164, 1994.
23

the Lower Menomonee River (MN-18, MN-19) subwatersheds, generally less than 30 percent of riparian buffers
are greater than 75 feet in width and many areas of these streams have no buffers with widths greater than 75 feet.
Like the Kinnickinnic River watershed, these riparian areas are coupled with park systems and are often
associated with high-quality vegetation communities. As shown on Map 9 and Table 1 there are a total of 74
significant vegetation plant communities distributed throughout the Menomonee River watershed that are
components of primary environmental corridors (PEC), natural areas, and critical species habitat areas as
summarized in TR No. 39. These vegetation communities range in quality from poor to excellent based upon their
Floristic Quality Index (FQI),24 which is a measure of plant species diversity and native community composition.
In general, the highest FQI ratings in the good to excellent range are associated with the largest stands of plant
species, but it is important to note that all of these vegetation communities provide necessary habitat for a variety
of wildlife. These park lands, natural areas, environmental corridors, and remaining agricultural lands are
associated with the best groundwater recharge area lands within the Menomonee River watershed (see Map 10).
Since the highest amount of agricultural and open lands are located in the northern portion of the watershed, these
areas are currently providing the greatest amount of groundwater infiltration, helping to sustain stream baseflows.
Map 10 also shows that the developed areas within the watershed are associated with the lowest groundwater
recharge potential. Therefore, preservation and, where feasible, expansion of the open space lands including
agricultural lands would protect, and perhaps enhance, the groundwater recharge potential within the watershed.
Stream widths in the Menomonee River were observed to range from about 20 to 30 feet in the headwaters to
about 70 to 100 feet in the downstream reaches.25 The Menomonee River is generally dominated by gravel and
sand substrates. The Little Menomonee River is dominated by sand substrates and ranges from about 20 to 30 feet
in width. Honey Creek and Underwood Creek are both dominated by gravel substrates and range from about 10 to
40 feet in width. Butler Ditch ranges from about 10 to 25 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates in the
headwaters and gravel substrates in the lower reaches.
As previously summarized in TR No. 39, there are a total of 153 point sources identified within the Menomonee
River watershed that include permitted noncontact cooling water discharges, permitted individual discharges,
CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. As shown in Table 1 these are predominantly located within the lower areas of
the Menomonee River watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls within this watershed, which
comprise about 60 percent of the total outfalls observed. These stormwater outfalls are found throughout the
watershed and, much like in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, there are likely to be more outfalls than identified.
Biological Conditions
The most recent biological assessment of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds identified a strong
relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.26 For example, median
chloride concentrations among several watersheds throughout the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area tend to
increase with increasing urban development. More specifically, the less developed upper areas of the Menomonee
River watershed (Willow Creek, Upper Menomonee River, Little Menomonee River) contain better water quality
than areas within the more highly urbanized, lower reaches of the Menomonee River watershed (Honey Creek,
Lower Menomonee River) and the entire Kinnickinnic River watershed. However, it is important to note that not

_____________
24

T. Bernthal, Development of a Floristic Quality Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin, Final report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, June 2003.
25

Ibid.

26

J.C. Thomas, M.A. Lutz, and others, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.
24

all water quality constituents showed the same pattern in relationship with urban lands. Some showed opposite
responses and some showed no patterns at all, which is similar to what SEWRPC documented in TR No. 39.
Figures 15 and 16 also show the strong negative relationship between fisheries Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
Hilsenhoff Biotic Integrity (HBI) quality with increased levels of urbanization among the greater Milwaukee
River watersheds.27
Table 4 shows that the highest-quality fish, invertebrate, and algal communities are located in less developed
watersheds of the greater Milwaukee area including the Upper Menomonee River.28 The poorest biological
communities were associated with the highest urbanized watersheds and include Honey Creek, Underwood Creek,
and the Kinnickinnic River. This is also consistent with observations detailed in the SEWRPC TR No. 39 report.
More specifically, TR No. 39 summarized that the biological community in both the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds is limited primarily due to 1) periodic stormwater pollutant loads (associated with
increased flashiness); 2) decreased base flows and increased water temperatures due to urbanization; and 3)
habitat loss and continued fragmentation due to culverts, concrete lined channels, enclosed conduits, drop
structures, and past channelization (see Channel Obstructions Section below).
Fish and invertebrate community data from 2000-2009 as shown in Table 5 and Map 8 generally supports the
conclusions summarized above that higher-quality areas are located within less developed areas compared to the
more developed areas of the Menomonee River watershed. However, these recent data also show that where
multiple samples were taken there is a range in both warmwater IBI and intermittent IBI quality throughout the
entire watershed. Although the intermittent IBI is not applicable for larger perennial streams within the watershed,
it was used to provide an assessment for the smaller tributaries and headwater reaches of the larger tributaries to
the Menomonee River. Basically, intermittent headwater streams are associated with less diverse fish assemblage
than perennial larger warmwater stream systems. Therefore, an intermittent IBI assessment will generally provide
a better score when compared to the warmwater IBI assessment. However, although these tributaries may not
necessarily be intermittent streams, an intermittent IBI was used to assess whether or not these urbanized
tributaries were at least functioning as good-quality intermittent systems; the idea being that, given the high
potential for fragmentation of fish passage and species extirpations, it is possible that these tributaries cannot
currently function better than an intermittent stream system. Therefore, comparison of the intermittent IBI versus
the warmwater IBI quality potentially indicates that the majority of the tributaries sampled are functioning as fair
and good intermittent fisheries. It is also important to note that Map 8 shows the maximum quality achieved
within each subwatershed reach throughout the time period from 2000 to 2009, as well as the highest quality
ranking achieved by either the warmwater IBI or intermittent IBI, whichever indicated better quality. Hence,
Map 8 shows the best possible fish community quality achievable within a particular reach, as well as the highest
functional stream assemblage achievable.
In contrast, invertebrate quality throughout the Menomonee River watershed shows that this community is
consistently ranked as good. Since invertebrates tend to colonize or re-establish sooner after a reach has been
disturbed and begins to stabilize, the high proportion of good HBI scores is a potential sign the Menomonee River
watershed may be recovering/improving. Invertebrates as a biotic indicator also tend to show a clearer
relationship to habitat as compared to Fish Indices.29 This also seems to be the case given that the invertebrate
quality ratings are more closely associated with the habitat quality ratings than are the fish ratings. This may also
be a good indication that habitat and food-based organisms are improving and that the fishery may need more
time to recover.
_____________
27

Ibid.

28

Ibid.

29

Personal communications, USGS staff.
25

Figure 15
FISH INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) SCORES COMPARED TO PERCENT
URBAN LAND USE AMONG SITES IN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Source:

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.

Figure 16
A MODIFIED HILSENHOFF BIOTIC INDEX (HBI-10) COMPARED TO PERCENT
URBAN LAND USE AMONG SITES IN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Source:

26

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.

Table 4
AVERAGE TROPHIC-LEVEL RANKINGS AND AGGREGATE BIOASSESSMENT RANKING
AMONG STREAM SITES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS: 2004-2005
Average Trophic-Level Ranking

Site

Fisha

Invertebratesb

Algaec

Aggregate
Bioassessment
Ranking
Quartile 1

Milwaukee River near Cedarburg

1.00

1.33

2.00

1.44

Milwaukee River at Milwaukee

2.00

2.67

6.00

3.56

Jewel Creek at Muskego

5.00

6.00

1.50

4.17

Menomonee River at Menomonee Falls

3.00

7.33

4.00

4.78
Quartile 2

Willow Creek at Maple Road near Germantown

4.00

6.17

7.00

5.72

Root River near Franklin

6.00

6.67

8.50

7.06

Root River at Grange Avenue at Greenfield

7.50

11.00

7.00

8.50
Quartile 3

Menomonee River at Wauwatosa

7.50

8.33

10.00

8.61

Oak Creek at South Milwaukee

9.50

7.33

9.50

8.78

Little Menomonee River at Milwaukee

13.00

8.33

6.50

9.28

Honey Creek at Wauwatosa

11.00

8.17

9.00

Quartile 4
Underwood Creek at Wauwatosa

9.39

9.50

10.33

8.50

9.44

Lincoln Creek at N. 47th Street at Milwaukee

13.00

9.67

12.00

11.56

Kinnickinnic River at S. 11th Street at Milwaukee

13.00

11.67

13.50

12.72

NOTE:

IBI = Index of Biotic Integrity; EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index. Fill color indicates
quartile of ranking (quartile 1, blue; quartile 2, light blue; quartile 3, light orange; quartile 4, orange; each column is considered
independently).

aAveraged trophic-level rankings included only fish IBI scores.
bAveraged trophic-level rankings included Shannon index of diversity scores, percent of EPT taxa, and HBI-10 scores.
cAveraged trophic-level rankings included percent of most-sensitive diatoms and percent of sensitive diatoms.
Source:

U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.

Table 5 also shows that habitat quality conditions are generally good to excellent within the Menomonee River
watershed. However, there are a few tributaries where habitat was only rated as fair and in one case very poor
(Lower Underwood Creek subwatershed). It is important to note that the habitat ratings within the Lower
subwatershed of Underwood Creek were conducted prior to completion of the concrete removal and
floodplain/channel restoration project (see Figure 11).30 Riparian buffer and instream habitat has been
substantially improved in this portion of Underwood Creek and associated habitat and fisheries quality within this
area are expected to improve, especially after concrete and drop structures downstream of this project are
_____________
30

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Underwood Creek Rehabilitation and Flood Management Project,
Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2006.
27

Table 5
FISH, INVERTEBRATE, AND HABITAT QUALITY AMONG REACHES
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Biological Conditions
Fisheries
Warmwater IBI

Subwatershed

Reach ID

Tributary Reaches and Subwatersheds
North Branch Menomonee .......................
Upper Menomonee River .........................
West Branch Menomonee River ..............
Willow Creek ............................................
Nor-X-Way Channel .................................
Little Menomonee Creek ..........................
Little Menomonee River ...........................
Lilly Creek ................................................
Butler Ditch ..............................................
Dousman Ditch ........................................
Underwood Creek-Upper .........................
South Branch Underwood Creek .............
Underwood Creek-Lower .........................
Honey Creek ............................................

MN-1
MN-2
MN-3
MN-4
MN-6
MN-10
MN-11
MN-7
MN-8
MN-13A
MN-13
MN-14A
MN-14
MN-16

-Very poor
-Poor-fair
-Poor-fair
Very poor-fair
Good
Very poor
-Very poor-fair
-No fish-fair
Very poor-fair

Mainstem Reaches and Subwatersheds
Upper Menomonee River .........................
Upper Menomonee River .........................
Upper Menomonee River .........................
Lower Menomonee River .........................
Lower Menomonee River .........................
Lower Menomonee River .........................
Lower Menomonee River .........................

MN-5
MN-9
MN-12
MN-17
MN-17A
MN-18
MN-19

Poor-fair
Very poor-good
Fair
Very poor
Very poor-fair
Very poor-fair
N/A

Fisheries
Intermittent IBI

Invertebrates
HBI

--

-Good
Poor-fair
Good
Fair-good
-Poor-fair
-No fish-good
Fair-good

-Fair
Good
Fair-good
-Good
Fairly poor-good
Good
--Fair-good
-Fairly poor-fair
Fair

-Good
Fair-excellent
Fair
Fair-good
-Fair-good
-Very poor-fair
Good

Fair-good
Poor-good
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

-Fairly poor-good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair-good
N/A

-Poor-excellent
Good
Fair-good
-Fair-good
N/A

Fair
-Good

Habitat Rating
--Fair
Fair

NOTE: The tributary reaches and mainstem reaches are generally ordered from upstream to downstream.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.

removed. However, it is important to note that a significant amount of concrete channel will remain in upstream
areas, which will continue to limit the potential overall fishery within the Underwood Creek subwatershed. For
example, the very poor habitat rating within the lower subwatershed of Underwood Creek was associated with the
worst invertebrate rating, as well as the worst fish rating where several samples yielded no fish at all. This
demonstrates that although urban development may be associated with biological degradation, stream channel
conditions such as concrete lining can cause further collapse of the biological quality and severely limit its
ultimate potential for restoration.
Channel Obstructions or Fragmentation
There are nearly 100 potential channel obstructions in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and more than 300 in the
Menomonee River watershed. These structures are primarily associated with road and railway crossings in the
form of culverts and bridges, but obstructions can also include concrete lined channels, drop structures, debris
jams, and beaver dams. These obstructions can form physical and/or hydrological barriers to fisheries movements,
which can severely limit the abundance and diversity of fishes within stream systems.31 Not all road or railway
crossings are limiting fish passage in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, but many of these
_____________
31

T.M. Slawski, and others, “Effects of low-head dams, urbanization, and tributary spatial position on fish
assemblage structure within a Midwest stream,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 2008.
28

Figure 17

Figure 18

CONCRETE LINING IN THE MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHED NEAR THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
BRIDGE FROM RIVER MILE 3.62 TO 4.24 (SEE TABLE 6)

MENOMONEE FALLS DAM IN THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED AT
RIVER MILE 21.93 (SEE TABLE 6)

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.
Source: SEWRPC.

structures have not been assessed for fish passage and it is not known which of these structures are limiting the
fishery. However, the section of concrete lining near Miller Park (River Mile 3.62 to 4.24), as shown in Figure 17,
and the Menomonee Falls dam (River Mile 21.9), as shown in Figure 18, are two of the most significant fish
passage obstructions on the Menomonee River (see Table 6). The Menomonee Falls dam is a complete barrier to
upstream fish passage. This particular reach also contains bedrock outcrops resulting in natural falls (see Map 8).
These outcrops have probably limited fish passage upstream both historically and currently, so the upper reach of
the Menomonee River may have always been rather isolated from the downstream areas, even before construction
of the dam. The upper approximately 1,000 feet of the concrete lining from River Mile 3.62 to 4.24 along the
lower reach of the main stem limits fish passage due to the occurrence of supercritical flows at high velocities in
combination with no resting areas (see Figure 19). Similarly, the concrete lining within the lower reach of the
Kinnickinnic River (KK-10) also limits fish passage due to its length, lack of habitat, lack of adequate water
depths, high velocities, and flashiness.
As summarized in TR No. 39, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish species throughout the Menomonee
River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds over the last 100 years. However, it is important to note that this loss of
species has been disproportionately greater among reaches that are further away from a connection with Lake
Michigan. For example, comparison of historic (pre-2000) versus current (post-2000) fish species abundance
within the Kinnickinnic River indicates that species abundance has been and continues to be much greater in the
most downstream reach (KK-11) connected to the Milwaukee River estuary and Lake Michigan compared to any
other areas in the watershed (see Table 7). This indicates that the poor habitat, hydrology, and water quality
conditions primarily associated with concrete lining as shown in Figure 20 continue to severely limit fisheries
within this watershed. Table 4 confirms that the Kinnickinnic River contains the poorest fish, invertebrate, and
algal communities among the greater Milwaukee watersheds. In fact, only two native fish species have been
found to occur within this watershed since the year 2000 (see Table 7). However, due to its connection with the
Estuary and Great Lakes system, the lower reach of the Kinnickinnic has the greatest potential for fishery
improvement. That factor, combined with the completion of the removal of 167,000 cubic yards of contaminated

29

Table 6
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION AMONG REACHES IN THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 1902-1999 VS 2000-2009
Reaches

MN-1, 2, 3, 4, 5

MN-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 13A, 14, 14A,
16, 17, 17A, Portion of 18

Portion of MN-18, MN-19

Reach above
Menomonee Falls Dam
at River Mile 21.93

Reach from Menomonee
Falls Dam at River
Mile 21.93 to Concrete
Lining at River Mile 4.24

Reach from Concrete
Lining at River Mile 4.24
to Confluence with the
Milwaukee River

Entire Watershed

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Species According to Their
Relative Tolerance to Pollution

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

Intolerant
Blackchin Shiner .................................
Blacknose Shiner ................................
Brook Trout .........................................
Greater Redhorsea .............................
Least Darterb ......................................
Redside Daceb ...................................
Rock Bass ...........................................
Smallmouth Bass ................................
Spottail Shiner.....................................

----X
-----

X
X
--------

-X
--X
X
----

--------X

---X
------

--X
X
--X
X
--

-X
-X
X
X
--X

X
X
X
X
--X
X
X

Intermediate
Black Bullhead ....................................
Black Crappie......................................
Bluegill ................................................
Brassy Minnow....................................
Brook Stickleback ...............................
Brown Bullhead ...................................
Brown Trout ........................................
Central Stoneroller ..............................
Channel Catfish ..................................
Chinook Salmon..................................
Coho Salmon ......................................
Common Shiner ..................................
Emerald Shiner ...................................
Fantail Darter ......................................
Gizzard Shad ......................................
Golden Redhorse ................................
Grass Pickerel.....................................
Hornyhead Chub .................................
Johnny Darter .....................................
Lake Sturgeonb...................................
Largemouth Bass ................................
Largescale Stoneroller ........................
Longnose Dace ...................................
Northern Pike ......................................
Northern Redbelly Dace ......................
Pearl Dace ..........................................
Pumpkinseed ......................................
Rainbow Trout.....................................
River Carpsucker ................................
Round Goby ........................................
Sand Shiner ........................................
Shorthead Redhorse ...........................
Silver Redhorse ..................................
Southern Redbelly Dace .....................
Spotfin Shiner .....................................
Stonecat..............................................
Threespine Stickleback .......................
Walleye ...............................................
Yellow Perch .......................................

X
-X
X
X
--X
---X
-X
---X
X
-X
---X
X
X
------X
------

X
-X
-X
X
-X
---X
------X
-X
--X
-X
X
--------X
X
---

X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
---X
-X
--X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
--X
----X

X
X
X
-X
--X
X
--X
X
X
--X
X
X
-X
-X
X
-X
X
---X
-------X

X
-X
-----------X
X
----X
-----X
-----------X

X
X
X
---X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X
-X
-X
X
-X
--X
X

X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
---X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
--X
----X

X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X

Tolerant
Blacknose Dace ..................................
Bluntnose Minnow...............................
Central Mudminnow ............................

X
X
X

-X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

----

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

30

Table 6 (continued)
Reaches

MN-1, 2, 3, 4, 5

MN-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 13A, 14, 14A,
16, 17, 17A, Portion of 18

Portion of MN-18, MN-19

Reach above
Menomonee Falls Dam
at River Mile 21.93

Reach from Menomonee
Falls Dam at River
Mile 21.93 to Concrete
Lining at River Mile 4.24

Reach from Concrete
Lining at River Mile 4.24
to Confluence with the
Milwaukee River

Entire Watershed

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Species According to Their
Relative Tolerance to Pollution

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

Tolerant (continued)
Common Carp.....................................
Creek Chub .........................................
Fathead Minnow .................................
Golden Shiner .....................................
Goldfish...............................................
Grass Carp .........................................
Green Sunfish .....................................
White Sucker.......................................
Yellow Bullhead ..................................

X
X
X
X
--X
X
--

X
X
X
X
--X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--

X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--

X
-----X
X
--

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Total Number of Species

24

24

35

30

12

42

39

54

Total Native and Gamefish Species

23

22

33

28

11

38

37

50

Total Nonnative Species

1

2

2

2

1

4

2

5

Total Intolerants

1

2

3

1

2

4

5

7

14

13

22

19

7

26

24

35

9

9

10

10

3

12

10

12

Total Intermediate
Total Tolerant
aDesignated threatened species.
bDesignated Species of special concern.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.

sediment from the Kinnickinnic River between Becher Street and Kinnickinnic Avenue in 2009 under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/WDNR Kinnickinnic River Environmental Restoration Project,
makes it much more likely that fish species utilization will increase within this lower part of the system.32
In contrast, historic fish assemblages within the lowest reach of the Menomonee River (4.24 miles) contained the
fewest number of species (12) as compared to the upstream areas that were comprised of more than twice as many
fish species. However, the lower reach of the Menomonee River was only recently reconnected with the
Milwaukee River estuary and Lake Michigan when the Falk dam was completely removed in 2001. In addition,
removal of the North Avenue dam on the Milwaukee River at the upstream end of the Milwaukee Harbor estuary
and major habitat improvements near the dam site that were completed in 1996 has also contributed to a
significant increase in abundance and diversity of fishes in the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and estuary
areas. These efforts combined with several instream restoration enhancements, as well as fish stocking programs
have also contributed to the highest ever recorded number of total species (42) found within the Menomonee
River in over 100 years of fishery surveys.

_____________
32

USEPA, “Kinnickinnic River cleanup means a revitalized Milwaukee neighborhood,” News Release 09OPA221, http://epa.gov/greatlakes/sediment/legacy/kk/index.html, November 2, 2009.
31

Figure 19

MMSD has completed a number of stream restoration
and enhancement projects over the last several
ADULT SALMON MIGRATING FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
decades that have lead to significant improvements
TRYING TO SWIM THROUGH THE EXCESSIVE
in water quality and instream habitat, as well as
VELOCITIES WITHIN THE CONCRETE LINING OF THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED DOWNSTREAM
improved fish passage.33 For example, a restoration
OF RIVER MILE 4.24 (SEE MAP 8 AND TABLE 6)
project along the Menomonee River in Hoyt Park
stabilized the streambed and streambank, as well as
lowered (excavated) the adjacent lands to reconnect
the riparian lands with the stream system as shown in
Figure 21. This reconnection with the floodplain
protects the streambanks from erosion by allowing
water to flow outside the banks and into the riparian
areas, reducing velocities by distributing flow over a
greater area. Instream fisheries habitat and fish
passage were improved as part of the removal of
concrete lining and the drop structure within the
Menomonee River near N. 43rd Street and W. State
Street as shown in Figure 22. These and other projects, such as restoration by the USEPA of the reach of
the Little Menomonee River associated with the
Moss-American Superfund Site in Milwaukee County
or restoration of the Dretzka Park Tributary associated
Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.
with Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WisDOT) roadway improvements from N. 124th
Street to W. Brown Deer Road (STH 100) in the
Village of Menomonee Falls have contributed to improvements in water, habitat, and fishery quality within the
Menomonee River watershed.34 More specifically, the WisDOT project led to restoration of more than 1,200
linear stream feet of stream channel and an associated eight-acre wetland mitigation/restoration project, which
resulted in a significant improvement in fish species diversity (two to three times increase in species richness) and
abundance (three to 13 times increase in fish abundance). This restored area currently accounts for the highestquality of fish assemblages, based upon samples taken, within the MN-9 subwatershed area (see Map 8).
Construction of this roadway improvement project was completed in 2001 and the fishery and habitat assessment
was completed in 2008,35 which demonstrates that the stream system can respond positively to improvements in
stream hydrology, habitat, and associated riparian corridors and those improvements can lead to a sustained
improvement in the fishery.

_____________
33

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Menomonee River Phase 2 Watercourse Management Plan,
prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2002.
34

USEPA, Cleanup Nears Completion in Little Menomonee River, Moss-American Superfund Site, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/mossamerican/, December 2007; and SEWRPC Staff Memorandum,
“Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County—Survey Data, Analysis, and Recommendations Relating to the
Proposed Relocation of Dretzka Park Tributary to the Menomonee River Under the Jobs Corridor Project,”
August 1999.
35

The N. 124th Street and W. Brown Deer Road WisDOT roadway improvement project won the national 2001
Globe Award for excellence in environmental protection and mitigation for exceeding regulatory compliance by
incorporating principles of stream ecology into a stream relocation design.
32

Table 7
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION AMONG REACHES IN THE
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 1902-1999 VS 2000-2009
Reaches
KK-4, KK-5,
KK-6, KK-7, KK-8

KK-1, KK-2, KK-3, KK-10

KK-11

Upstream
Confluence of
Wilson Park Creek with
the Kinnickinnic River

Upper
Kinnickinnic River
to River Mile 2.81

Lower Kinnickinnic
River Downstream of
Concrete Lining
(approximately River
Mile 2.81 at 6th Street) to
confluence with Milwaukee
Harbor Estuary

Entire Watershed

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Years Sampled

Species According to Their
Relative Tolerance to Pollution

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

1902-1999

2000-2009

Intolerant
Greater Redhorsea .............................
Redhorse Species ...............................
Smallmouth Bass ................................

----

----

----

----

X
X
--

--Xb

X
X
--

--Xb

Intermediate
Alewife ................................................
Black Bullhead ....................................
Brassy Minnow....................................
Brook Trout .........................................
Brown Trout ........................................
Brook Stickleback ...............................
Chinook Salmon..................................
Coho Salmon ......................................
Common Shiner ..................................
Gizzard Shad ......................................
Johnny Darter .....................................
Northern Pike ......................................
Orangespotted Sunfish .......................
Pumpkinseed ......................................
Rainbow Trout.....................................
Striped Shinerc ...................................
Threespine Stickleback .......................
Yellow Perch .......................................
Walleye ...............................................

-----X
----X
-X
-------

--------------------

--X
------------X
----

--------X
-----------

X
X
----X
X
-X
-X
-X
X
-X
---

---Xb
Xb

---Xb
Xb

--Xb
Xb

X
X
X
--X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

Tolerant
Banded Killifishd .................................
Common Carp.....................................
Creek Chub .........................................
Fathead Minnow .................................
Golden Shiner .....................................
Goldfish...............................................
Green Sunfish .....................................
White Sucker.......................................

--X
X
-----

---------

X
----X
---

---X
-X
---

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---X
-X
---

Total Number of Species

5

0

4

3

18

8b

24

11

Total Native and Gamefish Species

5

0

3

2

14

8b

20

10

-Xb
----Xb
--Xb

-Xb
-X
--Xb
--Xb
--Xb
Xb

Total Nonnative Species

0

0

1

1

4

0

4

1

Total Intolerants

0

0

0

0

2

1b

2

1

Total Intermediate

3

0

2

1

9

7b

14

8

Total Tolerant

2

0

2

2

7

0

8

2

aDesignated threatened species.
bThese species were estimated to be potentially present based upon a recent creek survey of the Lower Milwaukee River and Estuary adjacent to the Lower
Kinnickinnic River as summarized in the WDNR, Milwaukee and Menomonee River Creek Survey Report, PUB-FH-514-2008, January 2006.
cDesignated endangered species.
dDesignated species of special concern.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and SEWRPC.

33

Figure 20
CONCRETE LINING IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
WATERSHED WITHIN REACH KK-10

Comparison of current fish assemblages among
reaches within the Menomonee River shows that the
middle reach (River Mile 4.24 to 21.9) and upper
reach (upstream of River Mile 21.9) contained 35 and
24 total fish species, respectively. Although the
concrete-lined channel between River Miles 3.62 and
4.24 and the Menomonee Falls dam are significant
factors affecting fish species diversity as discussed
above, the fisheries data indicate that fish assemblages
are less diverse in stream reaches that are farther away
from Lake Michigan. Therefore, reduction of fragmentation or reconnection of stream reaches within
the Menomonee River is a critical aspect to address
for consideration in development of a sustainable
fishery with this watershed.

Existing Water Quality Monitoring Information
There is considerable ongoing surface water
monitoring within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
River watersheds as shown on Maps 11 and 12,
respectively. The current distribution and location of
monitoring sites includes a variety of continuous
water quality monitoring stations, instantaneous water
quality sites, water level gauges, water temperature
sites, and precipitation gauges (see also Tables 1
and 2). The Menomonee River watershed currently
has a total of 34 total monitoring stations and the
Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.
Kinnickinnic River watershed has a total of 26 stations. The majority of the water quality data is being
collected by MMSD, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), WDNR, and volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeeper’s Citizen Based Monitoring program.
These data are managed by each of the agencies and are publicly accessible through the USGS, the MMSD
Corridor Database and the WDNR SWIMS and Fish and Habitat databases.
MMSD continues to collect and analyze physical and chemical samples bi-monthly at 11 mainstem and 14
tributary sites on the Menomonee River, as well as six mainstem and two tributary sites on the Kinnickinnic
River. Measurements are taken for inorganic, organic, bacteriological, and instantaneous water quality
parameters. The MMSD contributes funds for the operation of flow gaging stations by the USGS on the
Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River and some of their associated tributaries.
The MMSD and USGS have also established six real-time water quality monitoring stations throughout the
Menomonee River watershed and one site on the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River (see Maps 11 and 12).
Using remote sensor technology, MMSD and USGS are measuring real-time specific conductance, water
temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity along with stream flow and stage, and applying regression models to
estimate concentrations of suspended solids, suspended sediment, chloride, fecal coliform and E. coli under a
variety of seasonal, temporal, and flow conditions. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection
platforms which transmit 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
water quality conditions throughout the Menomonee River watershed.

34

Figure 21
RESTORATION OF EXCESSIVE STREAMBANK AND STREAMBED EROSION AND
RECONNECTION OF FLOODPLAIN WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AT HOYT PARK
BEFORE

AFTER

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

The Milwaukee Riverkeeper staff trains and manages numerous volunteers who conduct Citizen Based
Monitoring efforts in the watershed. They currently have seven Level-1 sites, 13 Level-2 sites, and 15 temperature
monitoring locations throughout the mainstem and tributary areas of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic
River watersheds.
Their monitoring program was launched in 2006 and they currently have 58 volunteers monitoring sites
throughout the greater Milwaukee River watersheds. Volunteers are trained at two levels. Level-1 volunteers
conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative
aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using
WDNR equipment and protocols for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature (using automated
programmable temperature data loggers). Volunteers generally monitor on at least a monthly basis, and data is
entered into either the WDNR “SWIMS” or Water Action Volunteer (WAV) databases.
These ongoing data collection efforts have and will continue to provide a sound basis for the assessment of
current and future water quality conditions and high-quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of water pollution
control measures, to detect new and emerging water quality problems, and to help decision makers manage these
systems.

35

Figure 22
PRE- VERSUS POST- CONCRETE CHANNEL AND DROP STRUCTURE
REMOVAL/STREAM RESTORATION NEAR N. 43RD STREET AND
W. STATE STREET ALONG THE MENOMONEE RIVER

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

36

Chapter III

WATERSHED TARGETS, OBJECTIVES,
AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a strategic framework for decision-making and project prioritization for the purposes of 1)
protecting and improving recreation, water quality, and fisheries and 2) cost-effectively and efficiently
implementing projects to meet those improvement goals. Although not mutually exclusive, the recommended
prioritization strategies are different for Land-Based versus Instream-Based Measures as summarized below. The
differences in prioritization strategies are related to the fundamental differences potentially limiting the aquatic
versus terrestrial community and habitat quality within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
However, each of these prioritization strategies is based upon the main premise of protecting the existing quality
areas—either within water or on land—and expanding those areas through reconnection of stream-miles and/or
acres of land to reduce fragmentation.
Land-Based Measures
This prioritization is similar to the Three-Tier Instream fisheries approach, and is designed to focus on protecting
the existing highest-quality terrestrial wildlife habitat areas as well as expanding riparian corridors to preserve
instream quality for the short- and long-term. Prioritization for improving riparian corridors should be based upon
improvement in ecosystem structure and function where possible. Such improvements include protection of
groundwater recharge areas, expansion of existing corridor widths and/or connection to high-quality wildlife and
critical species habitat areas (see Maps 6, 7, 9, and 10). It is also recommended that this prioritization build upon
considerable prior open space planning efforts that include: environmental corridors delineated by the Regional
Planning Commission; the open space preservation elements of adopted County park and open space plans; the
MMSD Green Seams Conservation Plan, Greenway Connection Plan; and, the recently completed River
Revitalization Foundation Menomonee River Mainstem Land Protection Plan.1 It is important to note that a key
consideration in the identification of priority areas includes consideration of maintaining or expanding stormwater
management and flood control benefits, which is consistent with the goals of this report. In addition,
_____________
1

SEWRPC Planning Report No. 42 (PR No. 42), A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection
and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, September 1997; SEWRPC Planning Report No. 48 (PR
No. 48), A Regional Land Use Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2035, June 2006; SEWRPC Memorandum
Report No. 152 (MR No. 152), A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,
December 2002; and Kristen Wilhelm and Jason Schroeder, River Revitalization Foundation’s Menomonee River
Mainstem Land Protection Plan 2008-2009, 2009.
37

lands currently held in public ownership by the State, counties, cities, villages, towns, and nongovernmental
organizations form the structural framework for prioritization of the land-based measures from which to expand
protections. The high-priority lands for the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds are shown on
Maps 13 and 14, respectively. The high-priority lands identified to be protected represent a synthesis of recommendations from multiple planning efforts and they include open lands in public or public interest ownership
identified in the regional land use plan (SEWRPC PR No. 48) and in the River Revitalization Foundation
Menomonee River Land Protection Plan, MMSD conservation areas identified in SEWRPC MR No. 152, open
space areas identified to be protected through public land use regulation (MR No. 152), groundwater recharge
areas,2 high-quality plant community areas (SEWRPC PR No. 42), and riparian buffers adjacent to streams with
less than 75 feet of buffer width (SEWRPC PR No. 50 and TR No. 39) (see Maps 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14).
Instream-Based Measures
This framework is based upon a three-tiered approach, focused on the reconnection of waterways that have been
historically isolated from the Lake Michigan stream system through construction of dams, roadways, and flow
control structures, or modified through construction of single-purpose systems, such as stormwater conveyances.
As indicated in Figures 23 and 24, the three components of this strategy are:

Tier 1–Restoring connectivity and habitat quality between the mainstem waterways and the Lake
Michigan endpoint,

Tier 2–Restoring connectivity and habitat quality between the tributary streams and the mainstems of
the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, and

Tier 3–Expanding connection of highest-quality fish, invertebrate, and habitat sites within each of the
watersheds as shown on Maps 5 and 8.

The third tier is a “catch-all” that enables stakeholders to link the goals of habitat restoration and improvement of
recreational options with ongoing activities throughout each watershed. This strategic element provides the
flexibility for communities and stakeholders to take advantage of opportunities throughout each watershed that
may arise independently of the primary strategy of restoring linkages with Lake Michigan and tributary streams.
An example of this latter strategic approach would be using the opportunity provided by scheduled reconstruction
of area roadways to remove obstructions or modify channelized stream segments that might not fully conform to
the first two strategic priorities. To this end, it is further noted that provision of fish passage will provide passage
for other aquatic organisms such as invertebrates.3 By providing restored connectivity, and associated habitat, it is
envisioned that implementation of this plan will not only further the purpose of establishing a sustainable fishery
but also enhance human economic opportunities and recreational and aesthetic values associated with the
waterways of the greater Milwaukee watersheds.
It is fully recognized that within this framework opportunities will arise that should be acted upon. For example,
even though it is a general principle of this strategy that activities progress from downstream to upstream, the
completion of an action in headwaters areas or on a tributary stream should not be passed up or ignored simply
because it does not conform to the downstream to upstream strategy. Rather, all opportunities should be seized as
they become available. However, where multiple opportunities exist, and where limited funds are available, this
strategic framework is intended to assist decision-makers in allocating resources where they would be most
appropriate and effective in achieving the goals of the regional water quality management plan update.
_____________
2

SEWRPC Planning Report No. 52, A Regional Water Supply Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, in progress.

3

D.M. Vaughan, Potential Impact of Road-Stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates, U.S. Forest Service Report, March 21, 2002.
38

Figure 23
INSTREAM THREE-TIER PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Source: SEWRPC.

39

Figure 24
INSTREAM THREE-TIER PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED

Source: SEWRPC.

The Tier 1 prioritization is based upon the understanding that Lake Michigan is the most diverse resource and
greatest asset that both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems have for the potential to restore and
maintain a sustainable fishery. This prioritization is also based upon the understanding that within River systems
the widest and deepest downstream areas are generally associated with a greater abundance and diversity of fishes
compared to narrower and shallower upstream areas.4 For example, as shown in Tables 6 and 7 in Chapter II of
this report, those portions of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers connected with Lake Michigan through the
Milwaukee Harbor estuary contain the most diverse fish assemblages. This observation is also consistent with the
most diverse fish assemblages being found within the downstream reaches of the Milwaukee River that were
_____________
4

I.J. Schlosser, “A conceptual framework for fish communities in small warmwater streams,” pages 17-24 in W.J.
Matthews and D.C. Heins (editors), Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.
40

connected with Lake Michigan through removal of the North Avenue dam as described in TR No. 39. Position
within a stream network also is an important determinant of fish species assemblage structure with greater
abundance and diversity generally associated with tributary streams located in lower portions of the stream
network.5 Therefore, the highest priority, or Tier 1, approach focuses on restoring continuity of passage and
habitat restoration for native fishes on the mainstems of the Menomonee River (MN-19 through MN-5) and
Kinnickinnic River (KK-11 through KK-3) from downstream at Lake Michigan to their headwaters upstream as
shown in Figures 23 and 24, respectively. This approach is designed to redevelop the fishery through reconnection and restoration of the strongest determinants of overall fish species diversity and assemblage structure,
namely Lake Michigan and the tributary networks and their associated habitats from downstream to upstream.
The Tier 2 prioritization is based upon the understanding that through their connection with Lake Michigan the
mainstems of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers are the most diverse resources and greatest assets that
their tributaries have for the potential to restore and maintain a sustainable fishery. Tributary streams that are
connected to, as opposed to being not fragmented from, the associated mainstem of stream systems have a greater
potential for increased fish abundance and diversity via access to feeding, rearing, and spawning, as well as refuge
from thermal stress or low-water periods.6 Hence, the second tier approach is focused on addressing fish passage
continuity and habitat quality from the tributary streams to the mainstems of the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic Rivers. The Tier 2 prioritization component is illustrated graphically in Figures 23 and 24.
The Tier 3 approach is designed to focus on improving fish passage and habitat quality throughout the entire
watershed. Prioritization of projects to improve the fishery quality should be based upon where fish passage
obstructions have been identified to be a problem and where improvement in ecosystem structure and function
can be attained. Factors to be considered include connection to one or more tributaries, length of stream between
structures, and/or connection to high-quality fish and habitat areas as indicated in Table 8 for the Menomonee
River watershed. A similar table was not developed for the Kinnickinnic River watershed because fish passage
and habitat quality improvements cannot begin until substantial removal of concrete channel segments and drop
structures is accomplished and the channels are rehabilitated within this system. It is recommended that these
structures and crossings be examined at the time of replacement or major modification with the intent of
minimizing the numbers of crossings, and improving crossings to eliminate barriers to fish migration. Further, it is
anticipated that new development or redevelopment may provide opportunities for interventions that do not
conform to the first and second tier approaches. These opportunities should not be ignored; rather, where there are
opportunities to enhance passage of fish and aquatic organism and/or to improve instream habitat, and where
funds can be obtained, it is recommended that actions be taken to enhance fish and aquatic organism passage and
habitat quality throughout the river systems.

RECOMMENDED LAND-BASED HABITAT PROTECTION ACTIONS
The following subsections are structured to indicate a habitat protection feature, such as riparian buffers; to
identify a target to achieve relative to that feature; and to discuss issues, key questions, objectives, recommended
actions needed to meet the target, and potential quantifiable measures related to the target.

_____________
5

L.L. Osborne and M.J. Wiley, “Influence of tributary spatial position on the structure of warmwater fish
communities,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 49: 671-681, 1992.
6

T.M. Slawski and others, “Effects of tributary spatial position, urbanization, and multiple low-head dams on
warmwater fish community structure in a Midwestern stream,” North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, Volume 28: 1020-1035, 2008.
41

42

Table 8
FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENT AT ROAD CROSSING STRUCTURES, CALCULATED STREAM LENGTH
BETWEEN STRUCTURES, AND BIOLOGICAL (FISH, INVERTEBRATE) AND HABITAT QUALITY DETERMINATIONS
AMONG MAINSTEM AND TRIBUTARY REACHES WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0250

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

--

--

--

0.3000

---

- -a
- -a

---

---

0.2150

--

--

--

--

0.3525

--

--

--

--

0.1875

--

--

--

--

0.7650

--

--

--

--

0.0375

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.1300

--

--

--

--

0.5385

--

--

--

--

0.1390

--

very poor

good

--

0.3850

---

fair
fair

fair
fair

fair
good

0.0800

--

--

--

--

0.1800

--

--

--

--

0.2230

--

--

--

--

0.0620

--

--

--

--

0.3600

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Mainstem
Menomonee River-Lower

MN-19W
0.025

No

C.M. St. P.&P. Railroad

0.055
0.15
0.23
0.355

No

N. Plankinton Avenue

No

N. 6th Street

0.57

No

IH 94

0.9225

No

Emmber Lane/Muskego Avenue

1.11

No

N. 16th Street

1.875

No

C.M. St. P.&P. Railroad

1.9125

No

Canal Street

1.9525

No

Canadian Pacific Railway

1.9725

No

Canadian Pacific Railway

2.1025

No

N. 27th Street

2.641
2.71
2.78
2.91
3.11
3.165

No

S. 35th Street

No

Pedestrian bridge

No

South access road

3.245

No

Pedestrian bridge

MN-18

3.425
3.615
3.648
3.71
4.07

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

North access road
Begin concrete lining
IH 94
Canadian Pacific Railway
W. Bluemound Road

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.1980

--

--

--

--

0.0120

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.0630

--

--

--

--

0.0160

--

--

--

--

0.1920

--

--

--

--

0.3240

--

--

--

--

0.5350

--

--

--

--

0.2700

--

--

--

--

0.1400

---

fair
very poor

fair
good

good
good

0.2100

--

--

--

--

0.3900

--

very poor

fair

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.3400

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.3300

--

--

--

--

0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.1400

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.1300

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Mainstem (continued)
Menomonee River-Lower
(continued)

MN-18
(continued)

4.24

Yes

Canadian Pacific Railway-end
concrete lining

4.438

No

Pedestrian bridge

4.45

Unknown

N. 45th Street

4.56

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

4.623

Unknown

USH 41 (northbound)

4.639

Unknown

USH 41 (southbound)

4.831

No

5.155

Unknown

5.69

No

Pedestrian bridge
Hawley Road
Pedestrian bridge

5.9625
6.06
6.09
6.1025
6.24
6.3135

Unknown

Unknown

N. 70th Street
Confluence with Honey Creek
Bike trail bridge

6.7025

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

6.7215

Unknown

Harwood Avenue pedestrian bridge

6.78

Unknown

Harmonee Avenue

Unknown

N. 68th Street

MN-17A

6.8895

No

Bike trail bridge

7.23

Yes

Ford-#5

7.34

Yes

Obstruction-#4

7.67

Yes

Obstruction-#3

7.6805

No

Footbridge

7.82

Yes

Paved ford-#2

7.87

Yes

Obstruction-#1

43

44

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.3100

--

--

--

--

0.0100

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Mainstem (continued)
Menomonee River-Lower
(continued)

MN-17A
(continued)

MN-17

Menomonee River-Upper

MN-12

8.0025

Unknown

Swan Boulevard

8.314

No

Golf course bridge

8.325
8.37
8.5015

Yes
Unknown

Paved ford
Confluence with Underwood Creek
W. North Avenue

8.62
9.6805

Unknown

W. Burleigh Street (eastbound)

9.6835

Unknown

W. Burleigh Street (westbound)

10.28

Yes

10.671

Unknown

N. Mayfair Road (northbound)

10.674

Unknown

N. Mayfair Road (southbound)

10.9

Unknown

Pedestrian bridge

10.94

Unknown

Private drive

11.041

Unknown

Golf course bridge

11.202
11.22
12.05
12.41
12.521

Unknown

W. Capitol Drive

Unknown

W. Hampton Avenue (eastbound)

12.524

Unknown

W. Hampton Avenue (westbound)

12.883

Unknown

Confluence with Little
Menomonee River
USH 45

13.423

Unknown

Railroad

13.523

Unknown

N. 124th Street

13.8
13.89
14.41
14.643

Unknown

Pedestrian bridge

Unknown

Confluence with Butler Ditch
W. Silver Spring Drive

12.57

0.1800

Underwood Creek

1.1800

--

very poor

fair

good

0.0030

--

--

--

--

0.6000

--

--

--

--

0.3900

--

--

--

--

0.0000

--

--

--

--

0.2300

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.1600

--

--

--

--

1.3200

----

poor
---

-fair
fair

fair
---

0.0030

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Limestone ford

0.3600

Little Menomonee
River

0.5400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.2800

--

--

--

--

0.8400

-Butler Ditch

fair

good

fair

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.3200

--

fair

Good

--

1.0200

--

--

--

--

0.5700

--

--

--

good

0.7500

--

--

--

--

0.9200

--

--

--

--

0.1900

--

--

--

--

0.2400

--

--

--

--

0.0800

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

poor

--

good

Menomonee River Mainstem (continued)
Menomonee River-Upper
(continued)

MN-9

14.72
14.963

Unknown

Railroad

15.983
15.99
16.55

Unknown

W. Mill Road

Unknown

W. Appleton Avenue

17.303

Unknown

W. Good Hope Road

18.22

Unknown

Private bridge

18.41

Unknown

Private bridge

18.65

Unknown

Private bridge

18.73

Unknown

Private bridge

18.76

Unknown

Private bridge

18.81

Unknown

Private bridge

18.85

Unknown

Private bridge

18.95
18.98
19.703
19.78
20.21
20.3
20.81

Unknown

Private bridge
Confluence with Lilly Creek
Lilly Road

Unknown
Unknown
No

Pedestrian bridge
Confluence with Nor-X-Way Channel
Pedestrian bridge

45

21.093
21.17
21.443

Unknown

Pilgrim Road

Unknown

Arthur Avenue

21.75

Yes

Limestone drop

21.82

No

Pedestrian bridge

21.907

Yes

Main Street-Menomonee Falls dam

22.073

Unknown

Roosevelt Drive

22.17
22.44
22.68
22.683

Unknown

Private bridge

Unknown

Private Drive

0.7500

Lilly Creek

0.5100

--

0.6000

Nor-X-Way

--

--

--

0.2800

--

--

--

--

0.3500

--

poor

good

excellent

0.3100

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.5100

---

very poor
--

-fairly poor

fair
--

46

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.5000

--

--

--

--

0.2500

--

--

--

--

0.8500

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Mainstem (continued)
Menomonee River-Upper
(continued)

MN-5
23.179

Unknown

River Crest Road

23.433

Unknown

County Line Road (CTH Q)

24.282
24.7
24.803

Unknown
Unknown

Private drive
Confluence with Willow Creek
USH 41/45

25.233
25.34
25.893

Unknown

Lilac Avenue

Unknown

Mequon Road

25.943

Unknown

River Drive

26.536

Unknown

Private drive

26.883
27.12

Unknown

Railroad
Confluence with West Branch

MN-1
27.133
27.135
27.253
27.87
27.873

Unknown

Freistadt Road

Unknown

STH 145

Unknown

Railroad/Confluence with
North Branch

28.663

Unknown

Pleasant View Drive

28.913

Unknown

Lovers Lane Road

0.5200

Willow Creek

0.4300

--

--

--

--

0.6600

--

fair

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.5900

--

--

--

--

0.3500

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

0.2500

West Branch
--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

fair

fair

--

0.6200

--

--

--

--

0.7900

--

--

--

--

0.2500

--

--

--

--

0.4600

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.3400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

good

fair

good

0.3000

--

--

--

--

0.1900

--

--

--

--

0.2900

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds
Honey Creek

MN-16
0.032

Unknown

Bike trail bridge

0.15

Unknown

Honey Creek Parkway Drive

0.49
0.577
0.59

Unknown

W. Portland Avenue

Unknown

Honey Creek Parkway Drive

0.89

Unknown

W. Wisconsin Avenue

1.08

Unknown

Honey Creek Parkway Drive

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.1600

--

--

--

--

2.3300

--

--

--

--

0.2400

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.1600

--

--

--

--

0.2400

--

--

--

--

0.1800

--

--

--

--

0.2600

--

--

--

--

0.2200

--

--

--

--

0.3700

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.3900

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.1300

--

--

--

--

0.3300

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.2250

--

--

--

--

0.5800

--

--

--

--

0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.4600

--

good

fair

excellent

0.1900

--

poor

--

fair

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Honey Creek (continued)

Underwood Creek

MN-16
(continued)

MN-14 and
MN-13

1.37

Unknown

Honey Creek Parkway Drive

1.79

Unknown

S. 84th Street

1.9491

Yes

IH 894 tunnel outlet

4.2767

Yes

W. Arthur Avenue tunnel inlet

4.515

Unknown

McCarty Park footbridge

4.62

Unknown

W. Beloit Road

5.04

Unknown

S. 76th Street

5.2

Unknown

W. Oklahoma Avenue

5.436

Unknown

S. 72nd Street

5.6144

Yes

5.878

Unknown

W. Morgan Avenue

6.1

Unknown

S. 68th Street

Channel drop structure

6.4722

Yes

W. Howard Avenue (downstream)

6.524

Yes

W. Forest Home Avenue (upstream)

6.9121

Yes

S. 60th Street (downstream)

7.012

Yes

S. 60th Street (upstream)

7.14

Unknown

W. Cold Spring Road

7.47

Unknown

IH 43/894

0.225

Yes

Channel drop structure

0.805

Yes

Channel drop structure

0.8125

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

1.27

Unknown

N. Mayfair Road

47

48

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0000

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.1800

--

--

--

--

fair

fairly poor

fair

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Underwood Creek (continued)

MN-14 and
MN-13
(continued)

1.46

Yes

Channel drop structure

1.462

Unknown

Union Pacific Railroad

1.5

Unknown

Watertown Plank Road

1.535

Yes

Channel drop structure

1.635

Yes

Channel drop structure

1.695

Yes

Channel drop structure

1.8725

Unknown

N. 115th Street

2.5725

Unknown

Confluence with South Branch
Underwood Creek
UPS Driveway

2.5805

Unknown

Pedestrian bridge

2.6725

Unknown

Private drive

2.6925

Unknown

Private drive

2.7325

Unknown

Private drive

2.8325

Unknown

Private drive

3.1025

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

3.1225

Unknown

Private drive

3.2525

Unknown

Wall Street

3.311

Yes

Parking Lot tunnel outlet

3.41

Yes

Parking Lot tunnel inlet

3.4325

Unknown

Watertown Plank Road

3.505

Unknown

Private drive

3.54

Unknown

Private bridge

3.5525

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

0.7000
2.56

South Branch
Underwood Creek
0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.2700

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.1300

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.7200

--

--

--

--

0.3400

---

poor
fair

fair
good

fair
good

0.6600

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.2900

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.0800

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.0020

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Underwood Creek (continued)

MN-14 and
MN-13
(continued)

3.6725

Unknown

Juneau Boulevard

3.7625

Unknown

Elm Grove Village Hall bridge

4.4825
4.67
4.74
4.8225

Unknown

Marcela Drive

Unknown

North Avenue

5.4825

Unknown

Private drive

5.5925

Unknown

Clearwater Road

5.881

Unknown

Private bridge

5.9925

Unknown

Santa Maria Court

6.0825

Unknown

Woodbridge Road

6.2025

Unknown

Indian Creek Parkway

6.3215

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

6.37

Unknown

Private bridge

6.41

Unknown

Private bridge

6.48

Unknown

Private bridge

6.5

Unknown

Private bridge

6.5125

Unknown

Private drive

6.59

Unknown

Private bridge

6.6425

Unknown

Private drive

6.6825

Unknown

Pilgrim Parkway

6.685
6.95
7.2385

Unknown
Unknown

Pedestrian bridge
Confluence with Dousman Ditch
Wirth Park bridge

7.685

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

0.5500

Dousman Ditch

0.4500

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

49

50

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0525

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.5100

--

--

--

--

0.6500

--

--

--

--

0.0040

--

--

--

--

0.2800

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

--

--

--

0.1400

--

--

--

--

0.4300

--

--

--

--

0.6300

--

--

--

--

0.3600

--

--

--

--

0.2300

--

--

--

--

0.5200

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.0880

--

--

--

--

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.6200

--

--

--

--

0.3300

--

--

--

--

0.0300

--

poor

fairly poor

excellent

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.8100

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
South Branch Underwood Creek

Dousman Ditch

Little Menomonee River

MN-14A
0.0525

Unknown

W. Bluemound Road

0.1525

Unknown

Canadian Pacific Railway

0.5725

Unknown

IH 94

1.081
1.662
1.726
1.73

Yes

W. Schlinger Avenue tunnel outlet

Yes

W. Greenfield Avenue tunnel inlet

0.028

Unknown

Union Pacific Railroad

0.06

Unknown

North Avenue

0.2

No

MN-13A

Pedestrian bridge

0.625

Unknown

Gebhardt Road

1.258

Unknown

Private drive

1.62

Unknown

Private drive

1.847

Unknown

Private drive

2.369

Unknown

Lake Road

MN-11
0.088

Unknown

N. Lovers Lane Road (STH 100)

0.51

Unknown

Pedestrian bridge

1.126

Unknown

W. Silver Spring Drive

1.46
1.47
1.485

Unknown

Union Pacific Railroad

Unknown

Bike trail bridge

1.589

Unknown

W. Appleton Avenue

2.402

Unknown

W. Mill Road

2.567

Unknown

W. Fond du Lac Avenue (STH 145)

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.7300

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.3000

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.4600

--

--

--

--

0.6200

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

1.1600

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.3800

--

--

--

--

0.2600

--

--

--

--

0.3900

--

--

--

--

0.1900

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.2600

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.3900

---

fair
fair

good
fair

fair
fair

--

--

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Little Menomonee River
(continued)

MN-11
(continued)

2.603

Unknown

W. Leon Terrace

3.33

Unknown

Park bridge

3.3835

Unknown

Bike trail bridge

3.685

Unknown

W. Good Hope Road (CTH PP)

3.76

Unknown

N. Granville Road (CTH F)

4.215

Unknown

W. Calumet Road

4.835

Unknown

W. Bradley Road

4.92

Unknown

Wisconsin & Southern Railroad

6.075

Unknown

Union Pacific Railroad

6.125

Unknown

W. Brown Deer Road (STH 100)

6.5

Unknown

Park bridge

6.76

Unknown

Footbridge

7.15

Unknown

W. County Line Road

7.34

Unknown

Private bridge

7.45

Unknown

Private bridge

7.71

Unknown

Farm bridge

7.83
7.92
8.21
8.22
8.31

Unknown

Private bridge

9.07

Unknown

Donges Bay Road
Confluence with Little
Menomonee Creek
Private bridge

9.365

Unknown

Mequon Road

Unknown

0.8500
0.3000

Little Menomonee
Creek
--

51

52

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

1.0200

--

--

--

--

0.2900

--

--

--

--

0.2900

--

--

--

--

0.2400

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.8600

---

good
good

good
good

good
good

0.3600

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Little Menomonee River
(continued)

Little Menomonee Creek

Willow Creek

North Branch Menomonee River

MN-11
(continued)

MN-10

9.38

Unknown

Private bridge

9.425

Unknown

Farm bridge

10.44

Unknown

Freistadt Road

0.29

Unknown

Private bridge (0.29)

0.58

Unknown

Private bridge (0.58)

0.8225

Unknown

Granville Road

0.84

Unknown

Private bridge (0.84)

0.91
1.03
1.0325
1.16
1.47
1.89

Unknown

Private bridge (0.91)

Unknown

Mequon Road

Unknown

Private bridge (1.89)

2.2525

Unknown

Freistadt Road

MN-4
0.0625

Unknown

Maple Road

0.6525

Unknown

Lannon Road

1.1525

Unknown

Appleton Avenue (STH 175)

MN-1
0.6315

Unknown

Holy Hill Road

1.05

Unknown

Private bridge (1.05)

1.2725

Unknown

Rockfield Road

1.6015

Unknown

Division Road

1.8315

Unknown

Railroad

0.0100

--

--

--

--

0.0625

--

--

--

--

0.5900

--

good

fair

fair

0.5000

--

good

good

fair

1.7000

--

--

--

--

0.6315

--

--

--

--

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.2200

--

--

--

--

0.3300

--

--

--

--

0.2300

--

--

--

--

1.0600

--

--

--

--

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.4700

--

--

--

--

0.7200

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
North Branch Menomonee River
(continued)

West Branch Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

MN-1
(continued)

2.895

Unknown

Maple Road

3.365

Unknown

STH 145

4.085

Unknown

Goldendale Road

MN-3
0.3315

Unknown

Freistadt Road

0.3915

Unknown

Private drive

0.51

Unknown

Private bridge (0.51)

1.1625

Unknown

Maple Road

1.2525

Unknown

Railroad

1.6325

Unknown

Private drive-bridge

2.0525

Unknown

Private drive-bridge

2.225

Unknown

Dalebrook Road

2.335

Unknown

Goldendale Road

2.525

Unknown

Freistadt Road

2.745

Unknown

Goldendale Road

3.015

Unknown

Goldendale Road

3.285

Unknown

USH 41/45

3.305

Unknown

Hilltop Drive

MN-7

Unknown
0.4015

--

--

--

--

--

fair

good

fair

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.6500

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.3800

--

--

--

--

0.4200

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.1900

--

--

--

--

0.2200

--

--

--

--

0.2700

--

--

--

--

0.2700

--

--

--

--

0.0200

--

--

--

--

0.3000

--

--

--

--

0.4015

--

--

--

--

0.4400

--

--

--

--

0.2200

--

--

--

fair

0.4100

--

good

good

fair

0.3300

--

--

--

--

Appleton Avenue
Unknown

0.8425
0.85
1.0625
1.07
1.469

0.4400
0.3315

Good Hope Road
Unknown
Brentwood Drive
Unknown
Daylily Drive
Unknown

53

54

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0800

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.0700

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.3800

--

--

--

--

0.4700

--

--

--

--

0.0725

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.1000

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.1400

--

--

--

--

0.2800

--

--

--

--

0.0900

--

--

--

--

0.4900

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.7500

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Lilly Creek (continued)

MN-7
(continued)

1.8025

Lilly Road
Unknown

1.8825

Mill Road
Unknown

1.99

Private bridge (1.99)
Unknown

2.05

Private bridge (2.05)
Unknown

2.1125

Private drive
Unknown

2.2025

Private drive
Unknown

2.2625

Private drive
Unknown

2.43

Kaul Avenue
Unknown

2.48

Bobolink Avenue
Unknown

2.5525

Private drive
Unknown

2.5925

Railroad
Unknown

2.9725

Silver Spring Road
Unknown

Nor-X-Way Channel

MN-6
0.0725

Unknown

Fond du Lac Avenue

0.1325

Unknown

USH 45 entrance ramp

0.1725

Unknown

USH 45

0.2725

Unknown

Stanley Drive

0.3125

Unknown

Main Street

0.4525

Unknown

Patrita Drive/Fountain Boulevard

0.7325

Unknown

Private drive

0.8225

Unknown

Wisconsin & Southern Railroad

1.3125

Unknown

STH 145

1.3725

Unknown

County Line Road (CTH Q)

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0800

--

--

--

--

0.3000

--

--

--

--

0.1500

--

--

--

--

0.5600

--

--

--

--

0.0600

--

--

--

--

0.2400

--

fair

--

good

0.4100

--

--

--

--

0.2600

--

--

--

--

0.1200

--

--

--

--

0.3300

--

fair

--

--

0.4100

---

good
poor

---

fair
--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.9100

South Branch Butler
Ditch

--

--

--

0.6900

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Nor-X-Way Channel (continued)

Butler Ditch

Dretzka Park Creek

MN-6
(continued)

MN-8

2.12

Unknown

Railroad

2.2

Unknown

Railroad

2.495

Unknown

Culvert at upstream end of pond

2.645

Unknown

Donges Bay Road

3.205

Unknown

Wasaukee Road

0.23
0.24

Unknown

Campbell Road

0.645

Unknown

Overview Drive

0.9

Unknown

Private bridge

1.0225
1.03
1.3525
1.36
1.49
1.7625

Unknown

Hampton Road

Unknown

Lisbon Road

Unknown

Lilly Road

1.81
2.5

Unknown

2.715

Unknown

Lilly Heights dam
Confluence with South Branch
Butler Ditch
Shamrock Lane

3.405

Unknown

Lisbon Road

MN-9
0.0531

Unknown

Fond du Lac Avenue

0.13

Unknown

USH 41/45 downstream

0.31

Unknown

USH 41/45 upstream

0.492

Unknown

W. Bradley Road

0.662

Unknown

Golf course bridge #1

0.788

Unknown

Golf course bridge #2

0.5900

--

--

--

--

0.0530

--

--

--

--

0.0770

--

--

--

--

0.1800

--

--

--

--

0.1820

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.1260

--

--

--

--

0.1300

--

--

--

--

55

56

Table 8 (continued)

Subwatershed

Reach

River
Mile

Fish
Passage
Obstruction

Structure Identification

Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)

Major
Tributaries

Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)

Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)

Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)

0.0670

--

--

--

--

0.1640

--

--

--

--

0.0325

--

--

--

--

0.0610

--

--

--

--

0.0930

--

--

--

--

0.0350

--

--

--

--

0.1100

--

--

--

--

0.0730

--

--

--

--

0.3000

--

poor

--

poor

0.1800

--

good

--

excellent

0.1500

--

fair

--

good

0.3700

--

--

--

--

0.0500

--

--

--

--

0.1700

--

--

--

--

0.0400

--

--

--

--

0.4800

--

--

--

--

0.0750

--

--

--

--

Menomonee River Tributary Subwatersheds (continued)
Dretzka Park Creek (continued)

NOTE:

MN-9
(continued)

0.918

Unknown

Golf course bridge #3

0.985

Unknown

Golf course bridge #4

1.149

Unknown

Golf course bridge #5

1.1815

Unknown

Golf course bridge #7

1.242

Unknown

Golf course bridge #8

1.335

Unknown

Golf course bridge #9

1.3695

Unknown

Golf course bridge #10

1.475

Unknown

Golf course bridge #11

1.5475
1.66
1.845
1.89
2.02
2.04
2.17

Unknown

Golf course bridge #12

Unknown

N. 124th Street

2.54

Unknown

Private drive

2.585

Unknown

Abandoned railroad

2.755

Unknown

Wisconsin & Southern Railroad

2.795

Unknown

Railroad

3.275

Unknown

W. County Line Road

No

N. 124th Street

No

W. Brown Deer Road

The tributary reaches and mainstem reaches are generally ordered from upstream to downstream.

Quality Rating

aNo quality could be assigned to this site due to the sampling methods.

Fish Sites

Invert Sites

Habitat Sites

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.

very poor

fairly poor

very poor

poor

fair

poor

fair

good

good

fair
good
excellent

Riparian Corridors
Healthy riparian corridors help to protect water quality, groundwater, fisheries and wildlife, and ecological
resilience to invasive species, as well as reducing potential flooding of structures and harmful effects of climate
change.7 In turn, the health of riparian corridors is largely dependent upon width (size) and continuity. Therefore,
efforts to protect and expand the remaining riparian corridor width and continuity are the foundation for
protecting and improving the fishery and recreation within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Corridor Target 1
Expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet.
Issue
All riparian buffers provide some level of protection that is greater than if there were no buffer at all. In addition,
wider buffers provide a greater number of functions (infiltration, temperature moderation, species diversity) than
narrower buffers. Therefore, it is important that existing buffers be protected and expanded where possible and
not be converted to urban land uses, which could lead to increased degradation to the fishery, water quality,
wildlife, and recreational opportunities of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Key Questions

What are the major human uses in the area?

Where do they generally occur in the watershed (map the location of important uses such as
recreational facilities, public access points, and trails)?

What impacts are the uses having, and what opportunities are there to reduce those impacts?

What needs or opportunities are there related to human uses or facilities in terms of meeting
management objectives and moving toward desired conditions in the watersheds?

Objective
The objective is to protect, preserve, and expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet where possible
among mainstem and tributary waterways throughout the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities for
establishment or expansion of riparian buffers:

Encourage the establishment of setback requirements to accommodate shoreland buffers, use of
appropriate and environmentally friendly landscaping practices, and inclusion of stormwater
management measures that provide water quality and water quantity benefits.

Use public lands or purchase lands identified on Maps 13 and 14 through donation, grants, fee simple
purchase, or acquisition of conservation easements.

Implement management activities to promote restoration.

_____________
7

N.E. Seavy and others, “Why Climate Change Make Riparian Restoration More Important than Ever:
Recommendations for Practice and Research,” Ecological Restoration, Volume 27(3): pages 330-338, September,
2009; “Association of State Floodplain Managers, Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions: Floodplain
Management—More Than Flood Loss Reduction, 2008,” www.floods.org/NewUrgent/Other.asp.
57

Conduct additional surveys to determine riparian buffer widths along streams for which inventories
have not yet been conducted.

Effect changes in zoning ordinances to minimize the adverse effects of urban development by
providing specific provisions and incentives for the clustering of development on smaller lots within
conservation subdivisions, thus preserving significant portions of the open space within each property
or group of properties considered for development, and minimizing the “footprint” of the developed
area relative to the open space on and around a development site.

Potential Measures

Stream-miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified.

Stream-miles with buffer width of 75 feet or greater preserved or established.

Volume of historic fill and/or tons of trash removed from riparian areas.

Area of native wetland or upland reconstructed.

Number of native species restored.

Area of exotic invasive species removed.

Corridor Target 2
Expand riparian buffer continuity (connectedness).
Issue
Fragmentation of riparian buffers by roads, railways, and utilities combined with encroachment by development
impacts the structure and function of riparian corridors and their ability to adequately protect waterways and
wildlife habitat. Stream crossings tend to have a cumulative impact on the stream and associated lands and on the
quality of water and the fishery.
Objective
The objective is to reduce the linear fragmentation of the existing riparian buffers by either removing crossings
where possible or at least not increasing the number of crossings of waterways within the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River systems, where practical. The human safety need to preserve access by police, fire protection,
and emergency medical services is an overriding consideration that must be applied in determining whether the
objective of removing a crossing is feasible. This objective is only meant to apply to situations where more road
crossings exist than are necessary to ensure adequate access for emergency services.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
expand riparian buffer continuity:

58

Use of public lands or purchase lands identified on Maps 13 and 14 through donation, grants, fee
simple purchase, or acquisition of conservation easement.

Implement management activities to promote restoration.

Implement management activities to promote recreation.

Removal of nonessential roads where appropriate.

Potential Measures

Stream-miles of continuous buffer widths of 75 feet or greater preserved or established.

Number of stream channel crossings and/or impediments to flow removed and/or retrofitted to restore
continuity of riparian buffers.

Increase in number of locations of safe public access for recreational use of streams.

Corridor Target 3
Protection of high-quality areas or environmentally sensitive lands.
Issue
The existing plant communities, natural areas, and critical species habitat areas are the most vital wildlife areas
remaining within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, and those areas need to be protected. Such
areas help provide local and regional ecological resilience within these largely urbanized watersheds. In addition,
protection of primary and secondary environmental corridors, isolated natural resource areas, and groundwater
recharge areas throughout the two watersheds should also be a priority.
Key Questions

What plant/animal communities or species are in decline or are considered rare on the landscape?

How do the current conditions compare with reference or desired conditions, and how do these relate
to human activities in the watershed?

How might the current conditions affect future land management objectives and strategies, and what
can be done to bridge the gap between current and desired conditions?

What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are important in the
watershed (Threatened or Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Species of Special
Concern, Birds of Conservation Concern)?

What is the distribution and character of the plant and animal habitats?

What activities could occur to improve riparian habitat conditions and improve wildlife habitat
conditions?

What needs and opportunities are there for habitat protection, maintenance, or enhancement?

Objective
Protect and manage environmentally sensitive lands to maximize native plant and animal biodiversity as well as
groundwater recharge.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
protect high-quality areas or environmentally sensitive lands:

Protect wetlands, woodlands, and groundwater recharge areas through land use regulation, public land
acquisition via donation or purchase, establishment of conservation easements on critical lands,
and/or possible expansion of environmental corridors. These protections are recommended for the
priority lands indentified on Maps 13 and 14 within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds, respectively.

59

Wetland areas, many of which have been historically modified or filled, are currently largely
protected through the existing regulatory framework provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit program, State wetland zoning requirements, and local zoning ordinances. Many wetland
areas in the watersheds are included in the environmental corridors delineated by the Regional
Planning Commission and protected under one or more of the existing Federal, State, county, and
local regulations. Consistent and effective application of the provisions of these regulations is
recommended.

Certain wetland and woodland areas have been identified for acquisition in the adopted regional
natural areas and critical species habitat protection and management plan.8 Implementation of these
recommendations, in addition to those set forth in the adopted park and open space plan for
Milwaukee County,9 would complement the protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive
lands.

Consider adopting and enforcing municipal shoreland setback requirements and should actively
enforce construction site erosion control and stormwater management ordinances.

Provide informational materials to shoreland property owners.

Enforce local zoning regulations to discourage development within the one-percent-annualprobability floodplain.

As a refinement of the recommendations of the regional water quality management plan update,
specific candidate sites for restoration of native wetland and/or upland prairie communities have been
identified as shown on Maps 13 and 14. Those lands should be purchased or easements should be
obtained, and the lands should ultimately be restored through modification of agricultural drainage
systems, removal of nonnative exotic invasive species, removal of historical fill, and/or establishment
of native vegetation, among other best management practices.

Conduct additional surveys to inventory environmentally sensitive lands.

Purchase lands to expand buffers within the SEWRPC-delineated primary and secondary
environmental corridors, especially along the river mainstems and tributary streams.

Potential Measures

Stream-miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified.

Stream-miles or area of land protected.

Continued enforcement of local shoreland and floodplain zoning ordinances.

_____________
8

SEWRPC Planning Report No. 42, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and
Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, September 1997.
9

SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 137, A Park and Open Space Plan for Waukesha County,
December 1989; SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132, A Park and Open Space Plan for
Milwaukee County, November 1991.
60

Information Needs
Conduct wildlife species surveys to identify high-quality riparian buffer and/or environmental corridor lands
throughout the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. These areas would then become the focus of
protection and reconnection with possible additional corridor lands.
Maintain current inventories on riparian buffer conditions and widths throughout the watersheds and expand
riparian buffer inventories within tributaries not assessed.
Hydrology
Urban development brings with it significant changes in the landscape. These changes historically have included
modification of the drainage pattern, hardening of surfaces, and alteration of infiltration, all of which can affect
water quality and quantity. All of these changes generally increase the volume and rate of runoff from
precipitation events. Historically, managing these increases in rates and volumes of runoff would often involve
construction of storm sewer and/or open channel systems to convey stormwater as quickly and efficiently as
possible to the streams of the watersheds, and ultimately to Lake Michigan. In recent years, however, flooding,
water quality impairment, and environmental degradation have demonstrated the need for an alternative approach
to stormwater management. Consequently, current stormwater management practices seek to manage runoff using
a variety of measures, including detention, retention, infiltration, and filtration, better mimicking the disposition
of precipitation on an undisturbed landscape.
Hydrology Target 1
Moderate flow regimes to decrease flashiness.
Issue
Urbanization increases the area of impervious surfaces, which can lead to an increase in “flashiness” (or the rate
at which flow responds to a precipitation event) and can subsequently affect streambank and streambed stability,
pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics, which, in turn, affect habitat availability and quality. Therefore,
increased flashiness has been determined to be a cause of degradation of aquatic communities.
Key Questions

What beneficial water resource uses occur in the watershed, and how are these affected by stormwater
management practices?

Which water quality parameters are critical to a healthy aquatic ecosystem?

What are current water quality conditions, and are there any problem areas?

How is water quality being affected by types of land use?

Objective
The objective is to emulate stream discharges in response to rainfall to levels observed prior to urbanization or
agricultural development to the extent practical. More specifically, decreases in average flow magnitude, high
flow magnitude, high flow event frequency, and/or high flow duration are sought to provide potential
improvements to the algal, invertebrate, and fish communities within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic
River watersheds. Significant reductions in streamflow rates and volumes would be difficult to achieve in either
of these extensively developed watersheds; however, opportunities for reductions may exist in the headwaters
areas of the Menomonee River watershed.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
moderate flow regimes and decrease flashiness:

61

Manage stormwater runoff to meet, to the maximum extent practicable, the agricultural performance
standards and the nonagricultural standards for existing development, new development, and
redevelopment as established under Chapter NR 151, “Runoff Management,” of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. The objectives of the first tier and second tier approaches would be to ensure
that new development and redevelopment conform to the water quantity and quality control
requirements of Chapter NR 151 and the MMSD Chapter 13 rule, “Surface Water and Storm Water.”
The objective of the third tier approach would be to address runoff from existing development as
opportunities arise, so that the quality of stormwater runoff meets the requirements of Chapter
NR 151.

Municipalities should take an active role in promoting urban nonpoint source pollution abatement
through meeting the conditions of their municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharge
permits under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Stormwater management
planning could be undertaken by municipalities to promote cost-effective urban nonpoint source
pollution abatement.

In addition to the adoption and enforcement of stormwater management ordinances, the most viable
measures to control urban nonpoint sources of pollution appear to be good urban land management
and urban housekeeping practices (see Appendix B). 10 Such practices consist of fertilizer and
pesticide use management, litter and pet waste controls, lawn watering, and management of leaf litter
and yard waste. These measures should be promoted under the public informational programs being
conducted under the conditions of the municipal MS4 discharge permits.

Implement and maintain stormwater management practices at the subwatershed and neighborhood
levels.

Restore floodplain connectivity with the stream system, where feasible.

Improve infiltration through innovative best management practices (BMP) that associated with lowimpact development, including bioretention and rain garden projects (see Appendix C),11 installation
of rain barrels, disconnection of downspouts, and installation of green roofs and porous pavement
projects.

Potential Measures

Numbers of detention and infiltration basins installed, drainage area controlled by regenerative
stormwater practices that achieve quality and quantity control, area of permeable paving materials
installed, acres of wetland and upland restored, area of low-impact development.

Number of rain gardens or rain barrels installed and downspouts disconnected, green roofs installed.

Drainage area controlled by regenerative stormwater practices that achieve quality and quantity
control and numbers of basins inspected and maintained.

_____________
10

UW-Extension, Water Resources Education Publications, http://clean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/index.htm.

11

Roger Bannerman, WDNR and partners; Menasha biofiltration retention research project, Middleton, WI, 2008;
N.J. LeFevre, J.D. Davidson, and G.L. Oberts, Bioretention of Simulated Snowmelt: Cold Climate Performance
and Design Criteria, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2008; William R. Selbig and Nicholas
Balster, Evaluation of Turf Grass and Prairie Vegetated Rain Gardens in a Clay and Sand Soil: Madison,
Wisconsin, Water Years 2004 – 2008, In cooperation with the City of Madison and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, USGS Scientific Investigations Report, in draft.
62

Miles of stream connected with the floodplain.

Decreases in average flow magnitude, high flow magnitude, high flow event frequency, and/or high
flow duration.

Improvement in flashiness index.

Improvement in instream water quality.12

Water Quality and Quantity
Water Quality and Quantity Target 1
Reduce water quality and quantity impacts from stormwater outfalls, nonpoint runoff, and sewer overflows
including reduction of localized erosion at pipe outfalls.
Issue
There are hundreds of outfalls, primarily storm sewer outfalls, distributed throughout the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds that have the potential to cause significant degradation to water quality and
streambed and streambank stability.
Objective
Reduce water quality and quantity impacts to improve instream habitat and aquatic communities within the
Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
reduce impacts from storm sewer outfalls, nonpoint runoff, and sewer overflows:

Provide adequate stormwater management through traditional (e.g., detention and infiltration basins)
and innovative techniques (e.g., bio-infiltration and green infrastructure).

Identify stream reaches with high salt concentrations and target them for pilot programs.

Evaluate existing road deicing and anti-icing programs with an emphasis on salt reduction;13 establish
new road deicing and anti-icing programs in communities that do not have programs; and promote
optimal application of deicing agents on commercial, industrial, governmental and institutional,
airport, and residential properties.

Implement measures to reduce localized erosion and physically modify the most-active outfalls (i.e.,
those with the greatest effect on instream physical conditions).

_____________
12

Improvements in instream water quality would be expected as a result of implementing many of the
recommendations set forth herein. Because of the complex nature of the stream systems in the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds and because of the existence of pollutants from stormwater runoff and other
sources within the drainage network and streams, a long-term time frame may be needed to identify measurable
improvements in instream water quality. Thus, maintenance of a long-term network of streamflow and water
quality monitoring gauges is recommended (see the Monitoring and Information section below).
13

Calcium chloride application could be reduced through implementing practices such as applying salt only at
intersections, mixing salt with sand, and calibrating spreaders and also through substitution of less
environmentally damaging anti-icing and deicing agents.
63

Potential Measures

Improvement in flashiness index.

Improvement in instream water quality through obtaining water quality and biological data on stream
reaches where salt application has been reduced in tributary areas.

Number of commercial owners, contractors, operators, municipalities, and the public contacted
through information programs on use of salt on driveways and other areas.

Number of flow deflectors installed, pipes cut back from streambank, linear feet of riprap installed, or
land area treated by infiltration practices.

Number of communities implementing new road salt reduction programs.

Reduction in amount of road salt applied by municipalities.

Land-Based Monitoring and Information
It is important that steps be taken to ensure the existence of a sound program of water quality monitoring to
determine the extent to which physical, chemical, and biological conditions are improving over time, to measure
temporal and spatial trends, to provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of water pollution control measures, and
to detect new and emerging water quality problems specifically linked to land use and land management issues in
the watersheds. Therefore, monitoring of land-based activities should be coordinated and linked with the instream
monitoring program (see Instream-Based Monitoring and Information section below) in order to optimize the use
of the scarce monitoring resources of multiple agencies and groups, generate monitoring data that are
scientifically defensible and relevant to the decision-making process, and manage and report water quality data in
ways that are meaningful and understandable to decision makers and other affected parties.
Monitoring and Information Target 1
Continue and expand monitoring and informational programming.
Issue
It is critical to establish improvements or degradation to water quality and biological communities, as well as
physical conditions of the stream and associated corridor lands, in response to land use changes throughout the
watersheds.
Key Questions

Where are land use changes occurring in the area?

What are the current mitigation practices such as rain gardens, downspout disconnection, wet and dry
stormwater basins, infiltration facilities, green roofs, winter road salt reduction, among others?

What mitigation practices are required by ordinance?

Are these mitigation practices effective and maintained?

What are the opportunities for citizen monitoring and participation by schools?

Objective
Continue existing monitoring efforts and expand monitoring and informational programming when possible.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
continue and expand monitoring and informational programming:
64

Continue and expand coordination of terrestrial monitoring, sampling schedules, and sharing of data
and results among government agencies, nongovernment agencies, citizen monitoring, and research
institutions. Specifically, such monitoring would include periodic bird counts, transect sampling of
upland habitat, and species counts of vegetation, invertebrates (butterflies, beetles, etc.), mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles.

Implement storm drain stenciling and related informational programming to encourage residents to
dispose of waste products safely, avoiding discharge directly to surface waters.

Promote and encourage use of green infrastructure, and monitor implementation and effectiveness of
such practices. Maintain practices as required.

Continue awareness programming and implement monitoring and management of nonnative invasive
species such as buckthorn, gypsy moth, emerald ash borer, and purple loosestrife, among other
species identified or may be identified in Chapter NR 40 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Potential Measures

Number of monitoring stations established, expansion of the biological database, and number of data
analysis and interpretation efforts continued or increased.

Number of stormwater management and green infrastructure practices installed and/or maintained.

Number of citizen monitoring stations established.

Amounts of invasive species removed and/or treated within an area.

Number of informational programs developed or workshops held.

INSTREAM HABITAT PROTECTION MEASURES
Aquatic Organism Passage
Aquatic Organism Passage Target 1
Restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e., follow
three-tiered prioritization strategy as outlined in Figures 23 and 24).
Issue
Fishing, both recreational angling and commercial harvesting of fishes, is an important economic activity in the
greater Milwaukee watersheds and Lake Michigan. The maintenance and continuity of both the species of
economic importance and those species on which they depend is associated to a large degree with the protection
and restoration of appropriate habitat. To this end, efforts to remove obstructions to fish migration along the
mainstems and tributaries of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers are a key element to the long-term
restoration of the fishery. These obstructions include dams, drop structures, roadways, and channelized river
reaches, among others. Removal of these obstructions should be accompanied by the restoration or re-creation of
habitat within the stream and riparian corridor that is essential for resting, rearing, feeding, and spawning of fishes
and other organisms.
Key Questions

What are the characteristics of the physical instream habitat (e.g., aquatic habitat composition, pool
quality, structural complexity) and what factors are influencing this condition?

What is the condition of aquatic communities and what factors (e.g., habitat suitability, habitat
fragmentation, nonnative species) are influencing the distribution or population viability of native and
desired aquatic species?
65

Objective
The objective is to restore the biotic integrity of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems by reducing the
fragmentation within these stream systems and reconnecting them with Lake Michigan. This objective is based
upon a three-tiered approach (see Figures 23 and 24), focused on the reconnection of waterways that have been
historically isolated from the Lake Michigan stream system (e.g., through construction of dams, roadways, stream
enclosures, concrete lining, and flow control structures) or modified through single-focus structural means (e.g.,
stormwater conveyances). The strategy is predicated upon a tiered approach: Tier 1–restoring connectivity
between the mainstem waterways and the Lake Michigan endpoint, Tier 2–restoring connectivity between the
tributary streams and the mainstems of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, and Tier 3–expanding
connection of highest-quality fish, invertebrate, and habitat sites within each of the watersheds, as shown on
Maps 5 and 8. As structures are removed or retrofitted, to promote fish passage over time, there will be improved
access to the highest-quality habitat areas for feeding, rearing, and spawning, leading to restoration of a more
sustainable fishery within both of these watersheds.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers:

Develop plans for improving fish passage in the 0.6-mile-long reach of the Menomonee River from
IH 94 to the upstream side of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge in reach MN-18, subject to
preserving the integrity of the Valley Park flood management facilities as shown in Figure 17 in
Chapter II of this report.

Develop plans for improving fish passage in the currently concrete-lined reaches of the Kinnickinnic
River (reaches KK-3 and KK-10) as shown in Figure 20 in Chapter II of this report, subject to
meeting flood management objectives.

Develop plans for removal and/or retrofitting of five low-head structures in the Menomonee River
between Swan Boulevard and Harmonee Avenue and implement those plans (see Figure 25).

Concrete removal identified above is recommended to be undertaken simultaneously with restoring
connectivity with the floodplain and recreating a more natural meandering stream. For example, the
first phase of the Underwood Creek rehabilitation and flood management project was able to
successfully accomplish flood management goals, reconnection with the floodplain, re-creation of
riparian buffers, and instream restoration goals simultaneously with removal of concrete (see
Figure 11 in Chapter II of this report).

Develop plans for removal and/or retrofitting of additional obstructions such as road crossings,
enclosed pipe (daylighting streams subject to satisfaction of floodplain management requirements),
debris jams, among others on the mainstem and tributaries and implement the plans throughout the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. However, it is not recommended that projects to
improve fish passage be implemented at General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA) within the
KK-4 subwatershed. The airport is currently served by an extensive series of floodwater and
stormwater conveyances, including stream channel enclosures.14 These facilities are designed to
minimize flooding on the airport grounds and upstream of the airport. It is not feasible or desirable to

_____________
14

The airport area was historically comprised of a complex wetland system as shown in the 1836 channel
condition, as shown on Map 4.

66

Figure 25
FISH PASSAGE OBSTRUCTIONS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED BETWEEN
SWAN BOULEVARD AND HARMONEE AVENUE WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER: 2009
River Crossing – Fish Passage Obstructions

67

Figure 25 (continued)

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.

68

modify these systems; however, there are continued opportunities for actions to improve water
quality within the KK-4 subwatershed from pollutant runoff from deicing agents or other
constituents.

Develop detailed assessments to expand restoration efforts to promote aquatic organism passage
beyond the mainstem to the tributaries, develop priorities, and implement restoration projects. See
Table 8 for a list of the number of road crossings or obstructions for each subwatershed within the
Menomonee River watershed and their relationship to fish passage, stream length, habitat quality, and
biological quality sample sites.

Potential Measures

Stream-miles of concrete removed.

Number of native species present or some equivalent biological indicator (see “Biological
Assessment” section above).

Number of structures removed or retrofitted (e.g., bridge crossings or drop structures).

Stream-miles of enclosed channel daylighted or retrofitted, number of tributary miles connected to
mainstem, or miles of stream channel restored.

Information Needs
Refine assessment of fish passage obstructions throughout the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds (see Appendix D).
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic Habitat Target 1
Restore fish and aquatic organism habitat from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e., follow
three-tiered prioritization strategy as outlined in Figures 23 and 24).
Issue
Since the early 1800s both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems have been substantially altered
through channelization, development (agricultural and urban) impacts, road construction, stormwater conveyance
systems, historical fill, and other historical and present day actions that have physically, chemically, and
hydrologically degraded habitat.
Key Questions

What are the basic morphological characteristics of streams in the watershed?

What are the causes of current instabilities in the hydrologic processes within the watershed?

What aquatic resources are they affecting?

How do current riparian conditions contribute to existing channel conditions?

How much area within the watershed has severe erosion and where does it occur?

What are the dominant hydrologic characteristics (e.g., baseflow, peak flows, minimum flows) and
other notable hydrologic features and processes in the watershed (e.g., groundwater recharge areas)?

What is needed in terms of aquatic and riparian resource restoration within the watershed?

69

Figure 26
DOWNSTREAM REACHES WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AND KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHEDS
MENOMONEE RIVER (WITHIN REACH MN-19)

KINNICKINNIC RIVER (WITHIN REACH KK-11)

Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

Objective
The objective is to preserve and improve, to the extent practical, physical, chemical, and hydrological
characteristics related to habitat conditions throughout both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
The prioritization strategy is based upon the three-tiered approach as previously described and is focused on
restoring habitat in a number of ways primarily including removal of concrete, remeandering streams to
rehabilitate channelized reaches, and protecting excessively eroding streambanks and streambeds (Figures 23
and 24). These actions would be designed to improve several dimensions of habitat that include but are not
limited to elements such as adequate water depth, pool-riffle structure, stream hydrology, variable substrate
composition, and instream cover such as overhanging vegetation or large woody debris. As habitat among reaches
and the connectedness of the stream system are improved over time, there will be improved access to the highestquality habitat areas for feeding, rearing, and spawning, leading to restoration of a more sustainable fishery within
both of these watersheds.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
restore fish and aquatic organism habitat from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries of the Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic River systems:

70

Protect and expand existing highest-quality remaining fishery and aquatic habitat (see Maps 5 and 8
and Table 8).

Enhance fisheries within reach KK-11 (see Figure 26) of the Kinnickinnic River and within reach MN19 (see Figure 26) of the Menomonee River by providing areas for fish spawning, juvenile rearing, and
refuge and feeding. Habitat restoration methods could include provision of spawning reefs that have
been successfully established by WDNR staff within and adjacent to the Milwaukee Harbor estuary as
well as potential use of emerging technologies such as the Cuyahoga Habitat Underwater Baskets
(CHUBs) pioneered by the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization with financial support
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/index.html).

Provide instream habitat treatments including pool and riffle structure, substrates, and vegetation.

Protect excessively eroding streambanks or streambeds, especially where structures such as bridge
abutments and buildings are threatened.

Restore connectivity with the floodplain and recreate a more natural meandering stream. This is also
recommended to be undertaken simultaneously with restoring habitat areas, where possible, in order
to provide for the diverse habitat life history needs of fish and aquatic organisms (rearing, feeding,
spawning, and refuge areas).

Maintain water quality conditions conducive to a successful and sustainable fishery.

Remove trash and other debris from the stream channel and adjacent riparian areas.

Expand operation of the River skimmer boat and other clean-up programs within the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River systems.

Potential Measures

Stream-miles of habitat protected.

Stream-miles of habitat created.

Number of miles connected and functional as fish and aquatic organism habitat.

Number of native species present or some equivalent biological indicator (see biological assessment
section above).

Tons of trash and debris removed.

Improvements in water quality, especially as related to thermal regime, oxygen concentrations and/or
fluctuations, turbidity, and chlorides.

Information Needs
Complete periodic streambank and streambed erosion assessments to identify areas for protection.
Aquatic Organisms
Aquatic Organism Target 1
Restore a sustainable fishery.
Issue
Since the early 1800s both the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River systems have been substantially altered
through channelization, development (agricultural and urban) impacts, road construction, stormwater conveyance
systems, historical fill, and other historical and present day actions that have lead to aquatic and semi-aquatic
community degradation to fishes, amphibians, invertebrates, and algae.
Key Questions

What aquatic or semi-aquatic (amphibian) communities or species are in decline or are considered
rare within and adjacent to streams?

How do the current conditions compare with reference or desired conditions, and how do these relate
to human activities in the watershed?

71

How might the current conditions affect future land management objectives and strategies, and what
can be done to bridge the gap between current and desired conditions?

What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are important in the
watershed (Threatened or Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Species of Special
Concern, Birds of Conservation Concern)?

What is the distribution and character of their habitats?

What activities could occur to improve riparian habitat conditions and improve wildlife habitat
conditions?

What needs and opportunities are there for habitat protection, maintenance, or enhancement?

Objective
The objective is to restore a sustainable fishery through the improvement of multiple aquatic and semi-aquatic
communities that include fishes, invertebrates, algae, mussels, and amphibians. Although there is limited
information on amphibians, mussels, or algae, these are important dimensions necessary to achieve the sustainable
fishery target. The prioritization strategy is based upon the three-tiered approach as previously described and is
focused on expanding the most diverse and highest-quality aquatic communities within the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds (see Maps 5 and 8 and Table 8).
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
restore a sustainable fishery in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems:

Protect and expand the remaining or existing highest-quality aquatic communities (see Maps 5 and 8
and Table 8).

Develop and implement plans for control and removal of nonnative species.

Reintroduce native species.

Potential Measures

Number, type, and life stages of native species observed (see “Biological Assessment” section above).

Area cleared or tons removed of nonnative species.

Instream Monitoring and Informational Programming
Target
Continue and expand monitoring and informational programming.
Issue
Knowledge of land use and instream conditions is essential for good planning and implementation of management
measures that will be both acceptable to communities and sustainable from an ecological and economic
perspective. In addition, creation of awareness of the multiple values of the waterways of the greater Milwaukee
watersheds is an important element of any restoration or protection effort. Without such awareness and “buy in”
from communities, efforts to affect land use decisions and improve instream conditions are limited to very little, if
any, success. Consequently, integration of public awareness building into the framework of interventions planned
in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds will be a key element of the success of the ecosystem
restoration projects proposed herein. Toward these ends, the following section summarizes the recommended
constituents (physical, chemical, and biological) and methods to conduct existing and future monitoring efforts
within both of these watersheds.
72

Key Questions

Where are the existing physical, chemical, and biological monitoring points in the area?

What are the current monitoring protocols—site locations, frequency of sampling, parameters
analyzed?

What are the opportunities for citizen monitoring and participation by schools?

Objective
The objective of the environmental monitoring activities is to document scientifically sound data and related
information on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River
watersheds to guide management actions in the River systems. Scientifically sound data and related information
provides the basis not only for completing the detailed engineering and technical designs of specific projects, but
also provides a basis for assessing success or failure of those projects. These data form an element of the process
of public knowledge-building associated with increasing public awareness of the issues facing the Kinnickinnic
and Menomonee River watersheds, and provide an avenue for direct civic involvement in the design and
implementation of priority projects. The goal of the monitoring projects would be to fully document the beforeand-after conditions extent in the vicinity of each activity, in both the upstream and downstream flow directions
and cross-river transects. While river depth and flow conditions are important considerations in determining the
types and nature of the monitoring to be conducted—citizen-based or classroom-based monitoring may be
appropriate in some situations where samples and data can be safely accessed without risk to volunteers or
students—professional monitoring may be more appropriate for certain parameters and in situations where
specialized knowledge or equipment may be required. It is envisioned that a combination of citizen monitoring
and monitoring by professional staff (e.g., USGS, WDNR, MMSD, and others) would be required to document
the outcomes of implementing recommended projects.
The objective of the informational programming is to enhance awareness of the values of the River systems and
their tributaries as elements of the natural resource base, as vital arteries of the local neighborhoods, and as
important economic resources for the communities through which the Rivers and the tributaries flow.
Restoration of naturalized systems and the reconnection of linkages between stream reaches that had been
segmented by structures is not without risk. The introduction and spread of exotic invasive species, for example,
continues to be a problem in the greater Milwaukee watersheds and Lake Michigan. However, to some degree,
this risk remains regardless of the connectivity of stream segments and streams to Lake Michigan. Nonnative
species have been, and will continue to be, introduced into inland waters of the State in the absence of direct
linkages between the Great Lakes and the tributary streams. Consequently, the presence of nonnative species
should not be viewed as a reason to maintain the status quo regarding connectivity of streams and lakes. For
example, the removal of impediments to the movement of fish and aquatic life as in the case of the former North
Avenue dam has benefited desirable species including smallmouth bass and lake sturgeon and has not resulted in
the proportion of nonnative species in the Milwaukee River.
Nevertheless, the presence of nonnative species in a habitat can produce alterations in the physical and biological
characteristics of the habitat. Since the early 19th century, at least 145 nonnative species, preferentially introduced
into the Great Lakes through ballast water discharges from ships, have become established in the Great Lakes.
Other nonnative species, such as common carp, Eurasian water milfoil, zebra mussels and purple loosestrife, have
been introduced into the greater Milwaukee watersheds from other sources, and have become established in lakes
and streams throughout the region. Typically, these populations can grow rapidly due to both their high
reproductive capacities and the absence of predators, parasites, pathogens, and competitors in their new habitat.
Once established in a waterbody, these species can rarely be eliminated, but, rather, are capable of being readily
dispersed to other waterbodies. In many cases, this dispersal is aided by direct or indirect human actions;
therefore, incorporation of invasive species monitoring and informational programming is an important element to
be included in a monitoring program for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
73

Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
continue and expand monitoring and informational programming in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds:

As the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plans are implemented by
the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT), Watershed Actions Teams (WATs),
liaison with the ongoing WDNR, MMSD, and USGS monitoring programs is recommended, and
modification of these programs is suggested so they can provide site-specific information on potential
priority project areas within the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds. Where appropriate,
these programs should include collection, dissemination, and analysis of data on a range of
parameters, including physical (stream morphological and hydrological data), chemical, and
biological (fisheries and invertebrate population data) parameters. The selection of specific
parameters should be guided not only by existing data collection programs, to ensure consistency and
continuity of data collection, but also by the likely interventions to be considered at specific sites.
Again, these data should be collected both before and after the interventions are designed and
implemented. Such data will provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the specific
interventions and support future implementation of similar, successful actions elsewhere in the
watersheds.

Continue and expand citizen- and student-supported monitoring efforts and maintenance of
inventories for fish passage, habitat, aquatic organisms, and water quality. Such efforts should be
supported and integrated into the data collection and analysis process associated with the professional
programs noted above. These programs form a vehicle for ongoing data collection that frequently
extend beyond the specific project period, and can contribute both to enhanced civic awareness and to
the education of youth.

Identify and develop new monitoring sites in cooperation with citizen and other monitoring programs
and share the knowledge with stakeholders.

Because prevention remains the first line of defense in the protection of the ecological integrity of the
waters of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, it is recommended that programs to reduce the
spread of nonnative and invasive species as well as programs to inform and educate the public on
these issues be continued and supported.

Incorporate information from MMSD infrastructure reports (detailed information on concrete-lined
channels, storm sewer outfalls, drop structures, road crossings, sanitary sewer overflow and combined
sewer overflow outfalls, among others) in future inventory updates to provide the most up-to-date
structure inventories.

Potential Measures

Number of monitoring stations continued and/or established and conditions documented and shared
with stakeholders.

Amounts of invasive species removed and/or treated within a reach.

Number of informational programs delivered.

Recreation
Recreation Target 1
Improve recreational opportunities.

74

Issue
The Kinnickinnic and Menomonee Rivers and their tributary streams form an important element of the natural
resource base of the metropolitan Milwaukee area. The location of the Rivers within environmental corridors and
open space areas provides an opportunity for people to utilize and enjoy these resources for recreational and
aesthetic viewing purposes. Consequently, these resources can provide an essential avenue for relief of urban
stressors among the population and improve quality of life in local neighborhoods and the entire Milwaukee area,
such as identified in the Vision for the Kinnickinnic River Trail Corridor project.15 Such uses also sustain
industries associated with outfitting and support recreational and other uses of the natural environment, and,
therefore, provide economic opportunities for the local communities.
Key Questions

Where are the major human concentrations in the area?

What are the current recreational opportunities within the watersheds?

What are the limitations to outdoor recreation?

What are some of the other opportunities that could be captured, such as linking trail systems,
creating water trails, and connecting with businesses and attractions?

What negative impacts may be associated with the recreational activities, and what opportunities are
there to reduce those impacts?

Objectives
As embodied in the regional park and open space plan and county and local open space plans, the objective of this
element is to ensure continuity of access to the water resources of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds, and to restore access opportunities in the Kinnickinnic River watershed as may be appropriate.
Making these urban waterways an attractive and welcoming part of the open space system will enhance public
awareness and commitment to these resources.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
improve recreational opportunities in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds:

With respect to the regulation and management of fishing, boating and related land-based recreational
opportunities offered in the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds, it is recommended that
current levels of enforcement be maintained and that ordinances be reviewed to determine whether
canoe and kayak access is unnecessarily restricted under certain conditions.

Promote and implement the ideas and recommendations identified within the Kinnickinnic River
Corridor Neighborhood Plan such as expanding views and safe use/access to the river corridor,
improving water quality and habitat for fishes and wildlife, establish riverfront activities that engage

_____________
15

Sixteenth Street Community Health Center, A Vision for the Kinnickinnic River Trail Corridor, prepared in
partnership with City of Milwaukee, WDNR, National Park Service, Groundwork Milwaukee, and the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Community Design Solutions program, November 2007.
75

users and create a lively environment such as community gardens, enhance local neighborhood
business districts, among others.16

In addition, recreational boating access users should be made aware of the presence of the exotic
invasive species Eurasian water milfoil, zebra mussel, and rusty crayfish among others. Appropriate
signage should be placed at the public and private recreational boating sites, and supplemental
materials on the control of invasive species should be made available to the public. These materials
could be provided to riparian householders by means of mail drops or distribution of informational
materials at public buildings, such as municipal buildings and public libraries, and to nonriparian
users by means of informational materials provided at the entrance to all municipal public
recreational boating access sites.

Make disposal bins available at the public recreational boating access sites for disposal of plant
materials and other refuse removed from watercraft using the public recreational boating access sites.

Additionally, the rivers, their associated parkways, and proximity to other economic and cultural
resources of the metropolitan Milwaukee area provide further opportunities for linking watersheds
through both land-based and water-based trails (see Maps 15 and 16). Connecting these landscape
features through an integrated system of roads, trails, paths, and waterways will further bolster the
need for services, including services such as hostelries, restaurants, and entertainment, as well as
outlets for supplies and maintenance. All of these services, in turn, provide outlets for informational
programming materials that will build awareness of the value of the natural environment to the
region, and create a base for citizen and stakeholder action to underpin the needed investments in
ecosystem management. Therefore, it is recommended that opportunities to form a continuous
riverfront trail system be pursued.17

Build landowner relationships and seek conservation easements, land donation, or land purchase
within the recommend priority lands indentified on Maps 13 and 14 within the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds, respectively.

Where feasible, and subject to land access considerations related to the efficient movement of
vehicles and trains and the provision of emergency services, consider removal of bridges or other
navigational hazards to reduce the risk of injury and/or fatalities due to recreation.

Consider removal of low-clearance bridges or dangerous abutments and other navigational hazards to
improve recreational opportunities and safety within the Rivers.

Consider signage to advise boaters of obstructions and/or other safety hazards.

Design and install trail connections and interpretive signs to identify habitat types, trials, canoeing,
and fishing access areas.

_____________
16

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District with Sixteenth Street Community Health Center, Kinnickinnic
River Corridor Neighborhood Plan, prepared by JJR, PDI/Graef, Beth Foy and Associates, and Gladys Gonzalez
of ¡Pa’lante! Creative, LLC., final draft October 2009.
17

SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 152, A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District, December 2002; and Kristen Wilhelm and Jason Schroeder, River Revitalization Foundation’s
Menomonee River Mainstem Land Protection Plan 2008-2009, 2009.
76

Potential Measures

Number of facilities maintained or added for public access to streams

Miles of trials established or managed

Numbers of signs installed to identify unsafe navigational hazards, number of navigational hazards
removed or retrofitted, number of new public access sites or facilities created, number of
informational signs installed

Number of safe recreation days, number of areas identified as safe for recreation, number of safe exits
constructed in confined channels

Number of trash and debris accumulation locations identified, improvement of trash and debris
accumulation points in the watershed, and tons of trash and debris collected and disposed of

SAMPLING PARAMETERS AND METHODOLOGIES
The land use, surface water quality, and auxiliary elements of the recommended plan set forth in PR No. 50
contain proposed actions which, when combined with the refined targets and actions described in this report,
should enhance and/or help preserve the surface water quality and biological quality of the streams in both the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. It is also important that steps be taken to ensure the existence of
a sound program of water quality monitoring to determine the extent to which physical, chemical, and biological
conditions are improving over time, to measure temporal and spatial trends, to provide data to evaluate the
effectiveness of water pollution control measures, and to detect new and emerging water quality problems. It is
important that such a monitoring program integrate and coordinate the use of scarce monitoring resources of
multiple agencies and groups, generate monitoring data that are scientifically defensible and relevant to the
decision-making process, and manage and report water quality data in ways that are meaningful and
understandable to decision makers and other affected parties. As summarized in the “Existing Water Quality
Monitoring Information” section in Chapter II of this report, water quality monitoring is well-established within
both the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Therefore, the following section summarizes the
recommendations related to habitat and biological monitoring parameters and methods to conduct existing and
future monitoring efforts within both of these watersheds.
Habitat Assessment
It is essential to the proper evaluation of potential habitat improvements or impacts that physical, chemical, and
biological monitoring data be collected. The habitat methodologies should include consideration of both key
chemical and physical parameters and biological response parameters within the streams of the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Assessments should be consistent with protocols for characterizing habitat
conditions used by both the WDNR and USGS.18 In addition to these quantitative habitat methods, there are
qualitative fish habitat rating methods developed by the WDNR for small (less than 10 meters, or about 30 feet, in
width) and large (greater than 10 meters in width) wadable streams (see data sheets in Appendix E). Although
these qualitative methods do not provide as much information as the quantitative methods, they do provide very
useful supplemental information, are much less time consuming to complete, and may provide an easy
methodology for volunteer monitoring.
_____________
18

U.S. Geological Survey, “Protocol for Characterizing Habitat,” Water Resources Investigations Report 984052; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Guidelines for Evaluating Habitat in Wadable Streams,”
June 2000; L. Wang and others, “Development and Evaluation of a Habitat Rating System for Low-Gradient
Wisconsin Streams,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 18:775–785, 1998; and T.D.
Simonson and others, “Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin Streams,” U.S. Department of
Agriculture, General Technical Report NC-164, 1994.
77

In addition to the more traditional methodologies summarized above, there are newly emerging monitoring
procedures such as the Center for Watershed Protection’s Unified Stream Assessment methodology for urban
river systems.19 These methodologies go beyond the traditional methods and incorporate important elements such
as stormwater outfalls, severe erosion, impacted buffers, utilities, trash and debris, and stream crossings. These
methodologies, or some equivalent, should be a part of the long-term monitoring strategies for the Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Fish passage assessment at roadway crossings is becoming recognized as one
of the most fundamental potential limiting factors in urban watersheds, which is why it is vital to include
assessment protocols that address passage at road crossings into monitoring programs for these watersheds (see
proposed draft fish passage assessment protocols developed by The Nature Conservancy in Appendix D). The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System
(CADDIS) is a tool for identifying stressors causing biological impairments in aquatic ecosystems. CADDIS is an
online application that helps scientists and engineers find, access, organize, use and share information to conduct
causal evaluations in aquatic systems. It is based on the USEPA Stressor Identification process, which is a formal
method for identifying causes of impairments in aquatic systems.
The amount of impervious surface and tributary area land uses are extremely important to consider in a long-term
monitoring program. These estimates form the basis for pollutant modeling, tracking trends in land use changes,
and identifying opportunities. SEWRPC staff is scheduled to initiate a revised land use update for the entire seven
county Southeastern Wisconsin Region in 2010. When completed, the updated existing land use information
should be incorporated into the monitoring program assessment for both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds. For example, this could involve comparison of existing and historical land use over time and the
effect on habitat of changes over time and prioritization of open lands for acquisition, and it could relate to the
selection of sites to monitor.
Biological Assessment
Biological assessments using existing WDNR protocols or some equivalent are recommended to be conducted for
fishes and invertebrates to characterize the aquatic community. 20 Where possible these biological assessments
should be conducted at the same monitoring stations where habitat data are collected. Consistent with the
recommendations of PR No. 50, the initial habitat and biological monitoring stations should be established at
existing long-term USGS streamflow and water quality gages. Fisheries surveys should target collection of the
entire fish assemblage. Diatoms (microscopic algae) also are good indicators for habitat evaluations, but limited
data exists within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems.
There are a large number of potential parameters and/or indices that could be used to measure biological
community quality, however, some of the key recommended constituents are listed below.

_____________
19

Center for Watershed Protection, Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 11, Unified Subwatershed and
Site Reconnaissance: A User’s Manual Version 1.0, March 2004.
20

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadable Streams
in Wisconsin,” June 2000; W.L. Hilsenhoff, “An improved index of organic stream pollution,” Great Lakes
Entomology, Volume 20, pages 31-39, 1987; and W.L. Hilsenhoff, “A modification of the biotic index of organic
stream pollution to remedy problems and to permit its use throughout the year,” The Great Lakes Entomologist,
Volume 31, pages 1-12, 1998.
78

Fisheries
Species richness
Total abundance
Shannon’s diversity index21
Warmwater Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)22
Number and proportion of native species
Number and proportion of nonnative species
Number and proportion of species intolerant to pollution
Number and proportion of species tolerant to pollution
Number of species and individuals, native species, predator fish; and number of fish in certain groups, such as
sunfishes, suckers, darters, and other groups
Intermittent Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)23
Cool and warmwater transitional fish species24
Invertebrates
Counts by genera
Counts by family
Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) Index
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)
Invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)25
Number and proportion of EPT genera
Shannon’s diversity index
Algae
Algal metrics including tolerance indices and relative-abundance26
In addition to the selected indices listed above, there are numerous other physical, chemical, water quality,
toxicity, and biological parameters that have been identified to be important indicators within urbanizing
watersheds in Wisconsin based upon recent USGS research under the National Water Quality Assessment

_____________
21

J.E. Brower, Jerrold H. Zar, and Carl N. von Ende, Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology, Third
Edition, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989; Robert E. Ricklefs, Ecology, Second Edition,
University of Pennsylvania, Chiron Press, New York, New York, 1979.

22

J. Lyons, Using the Index of Biotic Integrity to measure environmental quality in warmwater streams of
Wisconsin, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report NC-149, 1992.
23

J. Lyons, “A fish based Index of biotic integrity to assess intermittent headwater streams in Wisconsin, USA,”
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 122: 239-258, 2006.

24

J. Lyons, “Defining and characterizing coolwater streams and their fish assemblages in Michigan and
Wisconsin, USA,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Volume 29: 1130-1151, 2009.
25

Brian Weigel, “Development of stream invertebrate models that predict watershed and local stressors in
Wisconsin”, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Volume 22(1):123–142, 2003.
26

Herman Van Dam, Adrienne Mertens, and Jos Sinkeldam, “A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of
freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands,” Journal of Aquatic Ecology, Volume 28(1), pages 117-133, 1994.
79

Program.27 These parameters also should be considered as part of the ongoing and future monitoring programs
within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Hydrological Assessment
Several important hydrological constituents summarized below have been identified by USGS staff, 28 based upon
recent research related to the effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems among 30 sites in nine metropolitan
areas around the country, including one location in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. In general, the Flashiness
Index, which reflects the frequency and rapidity of short terms changes in streamflow in response to rainfall
events,29 correlates well to the Fish IBI metric. For example, a Flashiness Index above a certain threshold may
cause the IBI (fish) and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) (invertebrate) metrics to decrease
(degrading stream condition). In addition, average flow magnitude, high flow magnitude, high flow event
frequency, high flow duration, and rate of change of stream cross-sectional area are the hydrological variables
most consistently associated with changes in algal, invertebrate, and fish communities. Wet weather sampling
protocols have also been identified as important to incorporate into a monitoring program for these watersheds
(see SEWRPC PR No. 50 and Appendix F).30 Finally, hydraulic shear stress in a stream reach is an important
factor to evaluate. If the reach is in an area that is prone to more scouring effects, suspended solids increase and
more filter feeding invertebrates would usually be found in this location. If the reach is in an area that has less
scraping effects, the suspended solids are reduced and more gathering type invertebrates would be expected in the
reach.31
Additional Monitoring and Evaluation Parameters to Consider
There are many important water quality constituents, including metals and nutrients, that are currently monitored
and/or recommended to be monitored in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds (see SEWRPC TR
No. 39 and PR No. 50). However, there are a number of potential nontraditional measures besides improvements
in dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, or temperature that are equally important and should be incorporated into a
monitoring and evaluation program. These measures are a mixture of direct physical improvements to the channel
and land- and water-based recreation. Since it may be very difficult to actually demonstrate a direct improvement
in water quality from an activity such as the purchase of lands to enhance a riparian buffer at one site, it remains
important to identify some type of measure of achieving the goal of improved water quality. In this case, the
amount of land purchased could be a good indicator of implementation for the protection and improvement of
water quality. To this end, several measures are recommended to be considered in evaluating progress toward
watershedwide habitat improvement. A monitoring and evaluation program should consider: improvements in wet
weather and dry weather water quality; increase in number of safe recreational days; volume of contaminated
_____________
27

Kevin D. Richards, Barbara C. Scudder, Faith A. Fitzpatrick, Jeffery J. Steuer, Amanda H. Bell, Marie C.
Peppler, Jana S. Stewart, and Mitchell A. Harris, Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems Along an
Agriculture-to-Urban Land-use Gradient, Milwaukee to Green Bay, Wisconsin, 2003-2004, Scientific
Investigations Report 2006-5101-C, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2008.
28

Personal Communication with U.S. Geological Survey staff, including Barb Scudder, Dave Graczyk , Jeff
Steuer, Peter Hughes, and Morgan Schneider.
29

D.B. Bake, and others, “A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to Midwestern rivers and
streams”, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 40(2): Pages 503-522, April 2004.
30

Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) Publication: Protocols for Studying Wet Weather Impacts
and Urbanization Patterns by L. A. Roesner, and others (WERF Stock # 03WSM3)
31

Personal Communication with U.S. Geological Survey staff including Barb Scudder, Dave Graczyk , Jeff Steuer,
Peter Hughes, and Morgan Schneider.
80

sediment removed; ordinances developed or setbacks established to promote riparian buffers; length of concrete
channel lining removed and stream restored; length of channel enclosure removed; length of streambank
stabilized; amount of riparian buffer expanded, purchased, donated, protected, or established; length of trash-free
stream reaches; area of historical fill removed; stream length with safe fishing and canoeing conditions; number
of fish passage obstructions removed or retrofitted; length of channel connected to Lake Michigan, mainstem, or
high-quality area; and improvement of habitat quality ratings.

ANCILLARY RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the numerous recommended actions and potential projects identified in the sections above, there are
an unlimited number of additional potential actions that SWWT WAT members could undertake, but that do not
necessarily fit within the confines of the targets identified. To that end, the following list of ideas or examples are
intended to help share ideas from past projects or experiences that have been successful in protecting the
environment.

Provide input to municipal plan commissions on land use decisions affecting the Rivers.

Maintain a geographic information system database of existing projects to monitor and improve water
quality. For example, riparian buffer width changes through purchase or easements or other types of
agreements.

Maintain contact with State, county and local elected officials and inform them of concerns regarding
protection of the Rivers and associated tributaries. Consider introduction of a program such as the
Rock River Coalition “Send your Legislator Down the River” awareness program.

Encourage inclusion of river-oriented curricula in local schools. Promote river monitoring and storm
drain stenciling in cooperation with community organizations such as the Urban Ecology Center.

Share inventory information with MMSD, WDNR, and SEWRPC to incorporate into planning
documents.

Consider establishment of demonstration projects on WAT members’ properties. Encourage
implementation of demonstration projects or sustainable landscaping in public parks.

Create and erect signage identifying watershed boundaries or stream crossings on local roadways with
appropriate permission.

Develop and distribute newsletters at municipal buildings and public libraries. Also consider
distributing recycled paper placemats containing river access points and activities of interest, to local
restaurants.

Create a recreational opportunity map showing locations such as access points, parks, viewing areas
for bird watching and watching salmon runs (seek sponsorship of publication cost from businesses or
agencies).

Sponsor a poster, photograph, essay, or video contest to promote awareness and protections of the
Rivers and their watersheds. Solicit prizes and support from community businesses and/or service
organizations.

Identify activities appropriate to community youth and service organizations and share these with the
leadership of these groups (e.g., Eagle Scout projects, community garden projects)

81

Promote synergies with existing community activities and organizations such as recycling, public
health, project clean sweep, among others. Develop partnerships with the Wisconsin Department of
Tourism and local tourism outlets and offices to promote river-oriented outdoor recreation. Partner
with local businesses (e.g., bike shops, canoe liveries, ice cream parlors).

Develop a “River Day” annual event to promote awareness of the ongoing efforts to protect and
enhance fisheries and recreation. Encourage public access television stations to develop, obtain, and
screen programs related to the natural history of the specific rivers.

Compile an oral and/or photographic history of the rivers in partnership with County historical
societies. Sponsor a river oriented display in community centers and libraries focused on local
neighborhoods.

Develop a revolving grant program to support various activities to protect and enhance water quality
throughout the watersheds similar to the program created by the Root-Pike Water Initiative Network
(WIN).

SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS
This report represents a refinement of the habitat-related data and recommendations of the SEWRPC regional
water quality management plan update for the greater Milwaukee watersheds (PR No. 50), specifically including
fishery, invertebrate, and habitat data gathered from completion of that plan up to the year 2009. Therefore, the
recommendations summarized in this memorandum assume that progressing toward achievement of designated
and recommended water use objectives and criteria as recommended in PR No. 50 is a high priority action. The
preservation and maintenance of well-functioning habitat within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds are closely associated with the continued improvement of water quality.
Maintenance and improvement of habitat for fish and aquatic organisms in the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee
River watersheds is important to the quality of life of the residents of the greater Milwaukee area. The provision
of fish and aquatic life passage is closely linked with the restoration and re-creation of instream and riparian
habitat. This habitat provides not only refuges for fishes and aquatic life, but also forms feeding and breeding
areas necessary for the survival of these organisms. Shoreland habitat, in the form of vegetated buffers,
contributes to the natural ambience of the river systems and their tributaries, and provides important ecosystem
functions related to flood mitigation, groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement, and terrestrial wildlife.
Reconnection of the rivers and streams to their floodplains provides ecological benefits and helps to protect and
promote human activities in the watersheds, limiting flood damage and promoting good public health, while at the
same time enhancing the visual landscape and providing the human inhabitants with recreational opportunities,
including angling, boating, and scenic viewing opportunities. Protection of the lands indicated on Maps 13 and 14
through appropriate zoning provisions, purchase, and/or acquisition of easements as opportunities arise is an
important aspect of the land-based and instream-based prioritization strategies developed to protect the
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watersheds. These prioritization strategies are based upon the main premise
of protecting the existing quality areas—either within water or on land—and expanding those areas through
reconnection of streams and land to reduce fragmentation. Ultimately, these actions will not only ensure progress
toward achievement of the fishable and swimmable goals of the Federal Clean Water Act, but also enhance the
quality of life of the resident populations of these watersheds and their visitors.
Continued monitoring of aquatic (physical, chemical, biological) and terrestrial conditions is an essential
component of both the land-based and instream-based priority actions in order to document achievement of
objectives set forth in PR No. 50 and to refine the objectives as necessary as remedial measures are implemented.

82

Priority Actions to Improve Habitat
Within the context described above, the following groups of management measures represent critical priorities for
action to protect and enhance land-based and instream-based habitat within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
River watersheds.
Land-based habitat recommendations:
1.

Protect and expand riparian buffers with a priority on reducing fragmentation through linking public,
private, and other protected lands.

2.

Control stormwater quantity to reduce flashiness and improvement of stormwater runoff quality to
moderate contaminant loads including nutrients, metals, salts (chloride), among others.

3.

Manage terrestrial diversity through control of exotic invasive species and introduction of native
plantings.

Instream-based habitat recommendations:
1.

Restore fish and aquatic organism passage to enhance connectivity with Lake Michigan.

2.

Protect and enhance instream habitat through stabilization of areas with excessive bank and bed
erosion; removal of concrete and restoration of stream hydrology dynamics, subject to satisfying
floodland management objectives; and reconnection with floodplain.

3.

Management of aquatic diversity through supplemental stocking, control of exotic invasive species,
and continued habitat improvement (e.g., floodplain or reef spawning areas, juvenile rearing areas,
native and/or critical species reintroduction).

In addition, based upon the analysis and the critical priority actions set forth above, specific management actions
within each of the watersheds are described below.
Kinnickinnic River Watershed

Fisheries enhancement projects within KK-11 should consider habitat re-creation to provide for fish
spawning, juvenile rearing, and refuge and feeding areas. Habitat restoration methods could include
provision of spawning reefs that have been successfully established by WDNR staff within and
adjacent to the Milwaukee Harbor estuary as well as potential use of emerging technologies, such
as the Cuyahoga Habitat Underwater Baskets (CHUBs) pioneered by the Cuyahoga River
Community Planning Organization with financial support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/index.html).

Removal of concrete within the downstream reaches of the mainstem (beginning in KK-10 and
continuing through KK-3 from downstream to upstream) should precede any other habitat
improvement projects within this watershed. This concrete removal should utilize the experience and
lessons learned from the MMSD Underwood Creek project which integrated floodplain mitigation
and fisheries habitat improvements (see photo).

Rehabilitation of instream and riparian habitat within the eroding portions of the mainstem within
KK-3. Actions required could include land acquisition for buffer expansion, bed and streambank
protection measures, and fisheries habitat improvements.

Menomonee River Watershed

Removal of approximately 3,800 linear feet of concrete (within reach MN-18) in the vicinity of W.
Wisconsin Avenue and IH 94 to reestablish fish passage to upstream reaches from Lake Michigan
while continuing to provide protection of development from floods. This rehabilitation should include
83

provisions for low-flow fish passage through a series of pools and riffles. In addition, the side slopes
and retaining walls should be removed and regraded, where possible. This project should utilize the
experience and lessons learned from the Underwood Creek rehabilitation project, which integrated
floodplain mitigation and fisheries habitat improvements.

Removal and/or retrofitting of five low-head structures along the Menomonee River between Swan
Boulevard and Harmonee Avenue (within Reach MN-17A). These structures consist of three sewer
crossings, one abandoned road, and one grade control structure. Rehabilitation of riparian and
instream habitat should also be undertaken as part of this removal. It is recommended that concrete
associated with these structures be removed from the stream channel or floodplain where possible.

Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds

Continued expansion of recreational trails and creation of linkages between these recreational trails
and regional recreational trails.

84

Continued expansion of trash and debris cleanup efforts and programs within waterways and
associated riparian lands.

Development of demonstration projects to promote newly emerging technologies such as green roofs,
bio-retention, and porous pavement to promote both water quality improvement and peak flow
improvements (reduction in flashiness) throughout the watershed.

MAPS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

WA

1
45

Map 1

43

MAINSTEM REACHES, TRIBUTARY
REACHES,
CEDARBURG
AND ASSESSMENT POINTS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED:
on
Graft2009
Jackson

k

R
57

Cedarburg

R
32

Germantown

R
181

MN-1

MEQUON

MN-2

MN-1 !
(

R

MN-3

145

(
!

THIENSVILLE

MN-10

( MN-2
!
MN-3

GERMANTOWN

R

MN-4

CO.

INGTON

CO.

KESHA

57

167

167

175

R

R

R
( MN-10
!

( MN-4
!
MN-5
MN-5
(
!

MN-6

OZAUKEE CO.
MILWAUKEE CO.
100

(
!
MN-6

R
74

BAYSIDE

R

MN-11

R
32

BROWN
DEER

LANNON

MN-9
(
!

RIVER
HILLS

R
57

FOX
POINT

MN-7

R
181

1
45

MN-7
USSEX

MENOMONEE

GLENDALE

FALLS
WHITE
BA

MN-8

MN-12
MN-11
( !
!
(
(
!
MN-9
BUTLER
(
!
MN-12

isbon

1
41

R

MN-8

R
74

R
190

EE

SHOR

190

MN-17
MILWAUKEE

-

R

43

57

BROOKFIELD

R

R

MN-13

164

145

MN-14

(
!
EWAUKEE

ELM

MN-13
!
(

-

MN-15

43

WAUWATOSA
(
!

MN-14

MN-13A

( MN-17
!

(
!
RMN-16

1

181

1

GROVE

Brookfield

MN-17A

18

18

41

-

MN-18
(
!

94

Mainstem and R
59
Associated Subwatersheds
A

Tributaries and
Associated Subwatersheds
(
!

Assessment Points
NEW BERLIN

R

0

1

2 Miles

-

WEST
MILWAUKEE

MN-14A

CO.

94

MILWAUKEE

-

18

WAUKESHA CO.

1

-

MN-19

794

R
59

WEST
ALLIS

R

R
32

100

1

MN-16

45

43

94

R
24

894

43

R
36

24

R
119

HALES
CORNERS

38

894

R

43

R

-

GREENFIELD

164

Source: SEWRPC.

1

MN-18

GREENDALE

R
36

R
181

18

1
Map412

1

MAINSTEM REACHES, TRIBUTARY REACHES, AND ASSESSMENT POINTS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 2009

18

1

94

-

794

-

MILWAUKEE

R
59

WEST
MILWAUKEE
WEST
ALLIS

LAKE

KK-11

KK-2

MICHIGAN

( KK-2
!

R
32

(
!

(
KK-1 !
KK-3

45

1

KK-3
(
!
(
!

KK-9
(
!
KK-10

KK-8

KK-8

KK-1

R
24

894

ST. FRANCIS

( KK-6
!

KK-7

KK-4

43

-

Mainstem and
Associated Subwatersheds
Tributaries and
Associated
Subwatersheds
24

-KK-6

R
36

R

Assessment Points

ORNERS

0

³

0.5
Source: SEWRPC.

(
KK-5 !
(!

894

GREENFIELD

(
!

KK-5
119

R
36

GREENDALE

R
794

R
38

GENERAL
MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT

R
1 Miles

ST.

94

-

KK-7 !
(

-

43

-

KK-4

CUDAHY

WA

1
45

Map 3

43

HISTORICAL VERSUS CURRENT STREAM
CHANNEL
CEDARBURG
ALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 1836 AND 2005
Grafton
Jackson

k

R
57

Cedarburg

R
32

Germantown

R
181

MN-1

MEQUON

MN-2

R

MN-3

145

THIENSVILLE

MN-10

R

R

R

57

167

167

GERMANTOWN

R

MN-5

175

MN-4

MN-6

OZAUKEE CO.
MILWAUKEE CO.

CO.

INGTON

CO.

KESHA

BAYSIDE

R

MN-11

100

R
32

R
74

BROWN
DEER

LANNON

RIVER
HILLS

R
57

MN-9

FOX
POINT

R
181

1
45

MN-7
USSEX

MENOMONEE

GLENDALE

FALLS
WHITE
BA

MN-12
BUTLER

isbon

1
41

R

MN-8

R
74

R
190

EE

SHOR

190

MN-17
MILWAUKEE

-

R

43

57

BROOKFIELD

R

R

MN-13

164

145

MN-17A
EWAUKEE

ELM

MN-13A

43

R

1

181

1

GROVE

Brookfield

-

WAUWATOSA

MN-14

18

MN-18

18

1
41

-

1

-

18

94

WEST
MILWAUKEE

MN-14A

R
1836 Wetlands

-

MN-19

94

794

R
59

2005 River System
NEW BERLIN

R

0

1

2 Miles

-

CO.

1836 River System

MILWAUKEE

A

WAUKESHA CO.

59

WEST
ALLIS

R

32

1

MN-16

45

43

94

R
24

894

43

R

R

43

38

36

24

R
119

HALES
CORNERS

R

894

GREENFIELD

164

Source: Wisconsin Board of Commissioners
of Public Lands and SEWRPC.

R

100

GREENDALE

R
36

R
181

18

1
Map 4

41

1

HISTORICAL VERSUS CURRENT STREAM CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 1836 AND 2005

18

1

94

-

794

-

MILWAUKEE

R
59

WEST
MILWAUKEE
WEST
ALLIS

LAKE

KK-11

KK-2

MICHIGAN

R
32

KK-3

45

1

KK-10

43

-

ST

94

KK-8

KK-1

R

ORNERS

ST. FRANCIS

24

894

-

KK-7

-

R
38

1836 Wetlands

894

-KK-6

GREENFIELD

1836 River System

R
36

R
24

2005 River System

0

³

GENERAL
MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT

KK-5

R
119

0.5

1 Miles

Source: Wisconsin Board of Commissioners
of Public Lands and SEWRPC.

R
794

43

R
36

GREENDALE

KK-4

CUDAHY

S 80th St S 80th St S 80th St
S 78th St S 79th St S 79th St
S 77th St S 78th St S 78th St S 77th St
S 76th St
S 76th St
S 75th St
S 76th St S 76th St
S 75th St

rk
Pa d
R

S 1st St

S Logan Ave
S Lenox St
S Quincy
Ave

riffin
SG e
Av
E Howard
Ave
E Norwich
Ave

S 1st St

S Pine
Ave

S Burrell St

#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*

Habitat

D

r

E Edgerton
Ave

ll
na
hit
S W Ave
all
hitn
S W Ave S Barland
Ave
S Elaine Ave

E Grange Ave

S Illinois Ave

E Dale
Ave

Dr

11th Ave

e
ksid
re e
SC
S Barland
Ave

Carroll Ct t
kS
Tamaricac
H kory St

S Lipton
Ave

E Birchwood
Ave

e

E Grange Ave

k
La

"
)
"
)
"
)

S

ic
inn
i ck
nn
Ki Ave

E Norse
Ave

Dr

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
S Packard
Ave

Fish

S Illinois
Ave

X
W
W
X

S Troy
Ave

Sh
or
e

S Illinois
Ave

S

Be
n
S India Ave net
t
na
Ave

E

E Rusk
Good
Ave
E Oklahoma
Hi St
Ave
gh ate
Ave
Excellent
wa
est
r
c
l
l
i
y
H
Ohio
E
E
o
Invertebrates 32
hi
Ave
EO e
E Holt
Av
E VollmerAve Fairly Poor
E Carol St
E Morgan
Ave E Morgan
E St
Ave
Ave
E Warnimont Francis
Fair
Ave
Ave
eth
zab
i
l
nig
E
nd
E Savela
E Ave E Koe
e
Ave
v
g
i
A
n
E Tripoli
oe Good
E Howard E Howard
E K ve
Ave
A
Ave
Ave lengthicof
NOTE: SeeETable
1A for
h total
Norwic
E Norwich
Norw h
E
streambank and streambed
assessed
AveThose segments
Ave are
Ave
ford
for stability.
also
E Water
shown on Maps 20
and 21 in
n
Dento
E
Ave
ESEWRPC
DentonTR No. 39.
Ave
EL
Ave USGS, WDNR,
LeroyMMSD,
ESource:
e ro
Inter-Fluve,
Inc.,
and
SEWRPC.
yA
Ave E Whittaker
ve
Ave
E Van
E Van
Norman
Norman
r
Ave E Armou
Ave
Ave
E Cudahy
E Price Ave
Cudahy Ave
SW
E Layton
hitn Ave
E Layton
all A S
Ave E Squire
ve W
Ave
Ave
h
Av itna
e ll
E Somers
Ave

S Arctic
Ave

St
E Jones
field
Green
E
Ave

S

E College Ave

St

S Iowa
Ave

W Edgerton
Ave
E Joseph
M
Hutsteine
r Dr

n

S Arctic
St
Ave
len
El
S Iowa
S
Ave
S Kansas
Ave

State
Highway 38
S 1st St
3rd
St

1 Miles

S Clement Ave
S Logan
Ave

S 2nd St

I-43

³

ger
bar
th
or Line er
T
tw S
en e
W Av t
S
S S St
t
r
4
S S St ClaiSt
I-79
ay
lair
r Dr
C
tSB
arbo t
S Logan
4
ay S
SH
I-79
Ave
yS SB
r Dr
ry Dr E Ba cess Rd
arbo
S HS Carfer
Ac
S Aldrich St

St

W Boden St

W Uncas
Ave
W
College
St
0
0.5
W College Ave Ave

S Adams
Ave

E Holt Ave

E

Iro

S Kansas
Ave
S Iowa
Ave

I-794

St

E Otjen St
e
l
Ave
da
ter
ose
Pot
R
E
W Ave
Pa
rk
R
d
r
i
C
r
Park Rd
e
u
a
E G E Gauer
Cir
a
om
h
la
Ok v e
W
A

te
Sta y 38
a
hw
Hig

W Edgerton
Ave
W Abbott
Ave

th
S4

W
WX
XX
W

n

KK-10

o
ins
ob
S R Ave

#
*
!
(
"
)

E Smith St

S Ace
Industrial Dr
S Ace
5th
Industrial Dr
794
5th 794
S Delaware
5th 5th 794 In
5th 794
ternation
Ave
al Dr
794
S Indiana Ave
SN
i
c
Ave
a
h
a
Indian
S
S Indian
o
Ave lson
Ave S Illinois
S Merill Ave Ave
S Robert Ave
S Elaine
14th Ave
S Barland
Ave
14th
Ave S Mc
Ave
Creedy
S Kingan
Ave
1th
S Packard
Ave
Ave
S Packard Ave
Ave

W Pierce St

W Bruce St
W National
Ave
W Walker St
Acc
ess
W Mineral St
Rd

ri e
EE

W Becher St

S 1st St S 1st St

KK-11

S 2nd St S 2nd St

an
ad
a

S 9th St

S 18th St

Gr

S 6th St

S 5th St

t
nd S

W

S 7th St

KK-5

S 6th St
S 7th St

S 22

W Kimberly
Ave
W Mangold Ave
W Alvina
W Alvina Ave
Ave
W College Ave W College Ave

ey
on r
H kD
S ree
C

State H
ge
ighway
119
an
Gr e
W Av
ir
A
W Grange Ave W
W Grange Ave
KK-4
Way
argo
te
C
a
9
t
W Klein
S y 11
a
Ave
hw
Hig
ion
itat
W Goldcrest
E C ay
W
Ave
W Iona Ter

W Upham
Ave

S 6th St

t
S 16th S

S 21st St

W Holmes
W Halsey Ave
Ave
W
W Edgerton
Edgerton
W Edgerton
Ave
Ave
Ave

S 26th St

y
S Hone
Dr
Creek

da
W Wanda
an
Ave W W ve
A
hwood
W Birc
Ave
W Goldcrest
Ave W Ramsey
W Ramsey
Ave
Ave

I-43
Ct
S 5th

#
*

W Hayes
Ave

S 4th St I-43
S 5th St Pl
S 5th
S 6th St

W Holt
Ave

S 14th St S 14th St
S 15th St
S 15th Pl
S 15th Pl
S 16th St

S 12th St

S 20th Pl

S 22nd St S 22nd St

S 24th St

t

W
X

RIVE R

43

W Cleveland
Ave

St
Oregon

S Brust S
Kansas Ave
Ave
S Kansas Ave
S Ahmedi Ave

W Bruce St

3 II-4

W Becher St

S 7th St

Parkway
Parkway Dr
Dr

S 15th St

S 22nd St
S 23rd St

St

S 78th St

S 79th St
S 79th St
S 77th St
S 77th St S 78th St
S 78th St S 78th St
S 77th St
S 76th St S 76th St
St
77th
S
S 77th St S 75th
S
S
75th St S 75th St 75th St S 75th St
St S 75th St
S 74th St
S 74th St
S 74th St
S 75th St
S 73rd St S 73rd St S 73rd St S 74th St
S 74th St
S 74th St
S 73rd St
S 72nd St
S 73rd St S 72nd St
S 71st
S 72nd St
St
S 72nd St
S 71st St
S 71st St
S 72nd St S 72nd St
S 71st St
S 70th St
S 69th St
S 69th St
S 70th St
S 70th St
S 69th St
S 69th St
S 70th St S 70th St
C
S 68th St
S 70th St
S 69th St
S 68th St S 68th St S 69th St
ro
St
68th
S
St
S
S
68th
69th
St
S
68t
h
St
S 67th St
cu
S 68th St
S 68th St
St
S 67th St S 68th
s
S 68th St
S 68th St
S 67th Pl
S 67th St
S 68th St S 68th St
C
WK
S 66th St
S
66th
St
S
66th
t
St
innic
S 66th St
S 67th St
S 65th St
S 67th St
kinn S 65th St
S 65th
St
66th
St
S
66th
S
S 66th St
ic
St
Rive
St
65th
S
S
St
65th
r
S
S
65th
St
S 64th St
6
4th S
Oakwood Ln
S 63rd St
S 64th St
Pky
t
Middleton Dr
S 64th St
S 63rd St
S 62nd St
S
62nd
St
St
Sta
63rd
S
St
63rd
S
Sq
Sunset
St
S 63rd
t
Badger Ct
Hig
S 62nd St
S 61st StS 62nd St S 62nd St
S 61st St
Mansfield
S 61st St
h wa e
S 62nd St
Dr
S 61st St
S Ha
S 60th St
y 36
S 60th St S 60th St S 61st St
S
60th
St
S
w
S 59th St S 59th St S 58th St ley R
S 60th St
Hig tate S 60th St
S 58th St
La
St
60th
S
St
60th
d
S
St
St
60th
h
S
60th
S
St
S 60th
S 60th St
way
S 60th St
S 58th St
ke
S 60th St
S 57th St S 58th St
S 58th St
36
S 57th St S 57th St
vie
St
58th
S
St
58th
S
S 57th St S 57th St
S Oak
w
Maplewood Dr
S 57th St S 57th St S 56th St
S 57th St
S 56th St
S 56th St
Ea Dr Lynn M
S 52nd Pl
Park Ct
S 56th St
St
56th
St
S
56th
S
eado
stw R
St
55th
S
St
G
55th
S
w D r re
ay d
S 55th St
S 55th St
53rd St
S 54th St S 53rd St S 53rd St
en
S 54th St SS52nd
S 54th St
br
St
St
53rd
S
S
St
oo
53rd
S
5
1
st St
W
S 52nd St
kT
S 52nd St
St
52nd
S
S
50th
St
E
e
lec
S 50th St S 51st St S 51st St S 51st St
WM
S 50th St
S 51st St
S 49th St
S 51st St r
S 51st St
tric
a
S 50th St S 50th St
S 49th St
Lea ple
S 48th St
Av
S 48th St 49th St S 49th St
f Ci r
e
S 49th St
S 47th St SS 48th St S 48th St
S 48th St
S 48th St S 48th St
St
S
46th
47th
S
St
St
47th
S
S 47th St S 47th St
St
46th
46th
S
S 45th St
S 46th St
S 46th St
S 45th St
S 46th St
S 46th St
S 45th St
S 44th St
S 45th St
St S 45th St
S 45th St
S 44th St
S 43rd St
S 45th St S 45th St
S 44th St
S
43rd St
S 44th St
S 44th St
St
44th
S
S
43rd
St
H
S
S 43rd St
S 44th St
Miller Miller
S 43rd St
igh ta
S 43rd St
S 43rd St
S 41st St
S 41st St
S 41st St
wa t e
S 43rd St S 43rd St S 43rd St S 43rd St
S 41st St
Park Park Way
St
42nd
S
y
S 42nd St
S 41st St S 40th St
S 41st St
36
Way
St
S 41st
S 39th S
S 38th St
S 40th St
S 40th St
t
S 40th St
S 39th St
Access Rd
S 38th St
S 38th St
S
37th
St
Sta S 39th St
H
S 38th St
S 38th St
igh te
S 36th St
SL
S 36th St
S 37th St
S 35t S 36th St S 36th St
wa
S 37th St
or
S 37th St
S 36th St
S 37th St
h St
S 35th St
S 36th St
S 35th St
y3
S 35th St
S 37th St
Av ene
S 35th St
S 35th St
6
S 34th St S 35th St S S S 35th St
e
S 34th St
S 34th St
S 36th St
S 35th St
S 33rd St S 33rd St
S 33rd St S 34th St S 33rd St
Somerset Ln
S 35th St S 35th St
Av hea
S 35th St
S 34th St
S 32nd St
e
S 33rd St S 33rd St S 33rd St S 33rd St
S 33rd St
S 31st St
S 31st St S 31st St S 31st St S 32nd St S 31st St S 32nd St
S
30t
h St S 31st St
S 30th St S 30th St
S 30th St
S 31st St
S 32nd St
S 31st St
S 29th St
S 30th St
S 31st St
S 30th St S 29th St S 29th St S 30th St
S 31st St
S 30th St
S
28th
St
S 29th St
29th St
St
S
29th
S
St
29th
S
St
29th
S
S 28th St
S 28th St
S 27th St S 28th StS 28th St
S 27th St
S 27th St
S 26th St
S 27th St
S 26th St
S 27th St
S 26th St
S 26th St
S 27th St
S 25th St
S 26th St
S 25th St
S 27th St
S
St
26
26th
S
th
S2
St
S 24th St
St S 25th St S 25th St S 25th St
25th
S
4
S
St
S 26th
th
S 26th St
S 25th St
S 24th St
Ke
S 24th St
S 24th St S 24th St
Ct
S 23rd St
S 23rd St
n
S 22nd St
S 22nd St
S 23rd St S 23rd St S 22nd St
S 22nd Pl
S 21st Pl
Av tucky
S 22nd Pl
S
e
S S 22nd St S 21st St
Pe
S 22nd St
S 21st St
M
ar
S 21st St
S 21st St
S 21st St
u
S 20th St
S 20th St S 21st St
S 22nd St
S 22nd St
S
20th
l
St
St A ske
S 20th St
S 20th St
S
19th
St
S Aetna
St
St
20th
20th
S
S
S 21st St
v
S 19th St
g
St
St
S 19th St
20th
S
20th
S
e
o
S 19th St
S
S
18th
18t
St
h
St
St
St
19th
Blvd
S
19th
S
S 18th St
St
S 20th StS 20th St S 20th St
S 19th
S 18th St
S 17th St
S 17th St
S 19th St
S 18th St
S 19th St
S 16th St
S 16th St
S 17th St
I-94
S 17th St S 15th
I-94
I-94
I-94
I-94
I-94
S 17th St
S
S 17th St
15t
h Pl
N 16th St
S 16th St
S 16th St
St S 15th Pl
16th
S
I-94
I-94
St S 15th Pl
S 16th St
S 15th Pl
S 15th Pl W
S 15th Pl
S 15th Pl
W
S
14th St
S 15th St
S 15th St
S 14th St
S 14th St
in
S 14th St
S 15th St
S 13th St
Av dla S 14th St
S 14th St
S 14th St S 13th St
S 13th St
S 13th St
k
e
S
12th
St
S
e
S 13th St
S 13th St
S 13th St S 13th St 12thSSt
S 13th St
S 11th St S 12th St
S 13th St
S 11th St S 12th St
11th St
S 13th St S 13th St
S 12th St
S 13th St
S
10th
S
10th
St
St
S 11th St
S
10th
St
St
S 11th St S 11th
S 11th St
S 10th St
S 9th Pl
S 10th St S 9th Pl S 10th St
S 10th St
S 10th St S 9th St
S 9th Pl
S 10th St
S 9th Pl S 9th Pl
S 8th St
S 9th Pl
S 8th St S 9th St
S 8th St S 9th St S 9th St
S 9th St
State S 8th St
S
7th
St
St
S 8th
S 8th St
S 8th St S 7th St
Highway 38
S 6th St S 7th St
S 6th St
S 8th St
S 7th St
Access Rd
St
6th
S
S 5th St
S 6th St
S 6th St
S 6th St
6th St
S
I-43
S 5th St
S 6th St
S 6th St
S 5th St
I-43 S 5th PlS 5th St S 5th Pl Acce
St
S 6th St
5th
S
S 5th St
ss Rd
S 4th St S 4th St
S 4th St
St
5th St
St
4th
S
S
5th
St
4th
S
S
S 5th St
S 2nd St S 2nd St
S 3rd St
S 3rd St
S 3rd St
S 2nd St
S 3rd St S 3rd St
S 1st St
S 2nd St S 1st St
St S 2nd St
S 1st St
3rd
S
S
1st
Pl
S 3rd St
State
S 1st St S 1st St S 1st St
S
S 1st St
S 1st St
H
S 1st Pl
Highway 38
S Barclay St S Water
S 1st StA owell
S Burrell St
St S
ve
SH
Wa
S Austin St
S Whitnall
owe
S
ter
State
H
owell
Ave ll
S Austin St
St
Ave
38
y
Highwa
Ave S Brisbane
S Austin St
S Griffin Ave
S Allis St S Marina Dr
Ave
S Quincy
S Griffin
S Griffin
S Mound St
S Taylor
S Adams Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
S Aldrich St
Ave
S Taylor Ave
S Taylor
S Pine
S Pine Ave
S Pine Ave
S
Ave
Ave
S Lenox St
He S Lenox St
S Logan
rm
S Logan
S Logan
an
Ave
Ave
S
St Hanson
Ave
S Clement
Ave
S Nevada St
Ave
I-794
S Nevada Ave
S Brust Ave

S 78th St

W Scott St

S 11th St

W Holt
Ave

S 25th St S 25th

rS
ine

KK-6

t
S 17th S

st
re
o
e
F
W Hom e
Av

S 17th St
S 18th St

W Lincoln W Lincoln
Ave
Ave
s
ye
W Ha
Ave W K
KINNICKINNIC R inni
ive cki
r P nni
ky c

S 21st St

S 24th St

S Layton S Layton
Blvd
Blvd
S 28th St

e
at 36
St ay
w
gh
Hi

ON

Teakwood Dr
S 43rd St

Ln
Ln
ony
Sax

n
sh L
arbu
Sug
r
gD
ge
W Colle
rlin Ste
e
t
rling Ct
S
Ave
rk Ln
Skyla
ILS

S 36th St

W Edgerton
Ave

SM

ale
nd
Lyn ve
W A

S 31st St

W
W OhioW Rusk
i
Ave
Po n St
eS
t
W Morgan
Ave

W

S 34th St

W Edgerton
Ave

S 31st St

S 35th St

S Ka
telyn
Cir

S 33rd St

KK-3

nic
nickin
W Kin er Pky
Riv

n

y
one
S H k Dr
Cree

W College
Ave

W Ohio
Ave

S 36th St

tional
W Na
Ave

State
Highway 57
S 28th St
S 29th St

W Mitchell St

t
S 38th S
S 40th St

ry L
Sur

n
tto
Su

pia
ym
Ol Dr
y
Eastwa

Ox
for
Dr d
Oakwoo
d St

S 48th St

e
sid
ke
La Dr

t
S 45th S

S 51st St

W Edgerton
r
y D Ave
e
l
r
o
M

S 44th St

R

Ln

C

rn
bu
ad

W
X

d St
t S 52n
S 53rd S K S 53rd St
S 54th St
EE

PARK

Northway

er
Mill k S 43rd St
Par
y
Wa
S 46th St
S 47th St

LYONS

e
gl
An Ln

S 57th St

Sherwood
Rd
R

KK-2

St

l
rP
he
c
Be

S 57th St

Enfield
Ave t
Con
S
ifer
on
Ln
t
s Darnell
y
a
u
E
uthw
Ln So ay
W
Devonsh
ire
Ave

Root
River
Pky

ay

ay

S 65th St
Millbank Rd
Mead Rd

W Edgerton
Ave

S 60th St

erial
S Imp
Cir

65th Ct

S 59th St

S 71st St

Fielding
Ln

Pl
er
y
e
r

l
th P
Stu

S 65th St

KK-8
W Tripo
li
W Howard
W Howard
A
v
e
KK-1
Ave
Ave
W Van
Beck Ave
W Tesch
W Water ford
WP
Ave
E Waterford Ave
lainf
Ave
field
in
la
P
ield P
W
W Leroy Ave
AR
Ave
K
Ave W Bolivar
W Bolivar
W Leroy
KK-7
W Cold W Bolivar
W Cold
3
I-4
Ave
Ave
W Cold W Cold
Ave
W Cold
I-43
Spring Rd Spring Rd Ave
W Martin Ln
Spring Rd Spring Rd ottsford
3
Spring Rd
WB
-I 4
Ave
rd
3
Bottsfo
W
e
v
A
W Van
n
4
W Allerto
Ie 4
W Armour
W Van Ave
at y 2
erton Ave
Norman Ave
All
t
W
S wa
W Colony Dr I-43 I-43 I-43 I-43
E Price
Ave
Norman
I-43
CREEK
I-43
I-43
gh
E Layton Ave
Ave
Hi I-43 I-43
W English
W Layton
Layton
W
W Armour Ave Meadows
Ave
W Layton Ave
Ave
Dr
W Layton
Ave
W Layton Ave
Ave W Layton Ave
ton
Lay
W
Ave
Layton
W
Ave
W Holt
Ave
nt
o
m
i
a rn
gia
Pl
or
W W AveW Eden
Ge v e
ve
A
r
W A
bu
Wil
W Crawford W W D
od
ge
Ave
Pl
W Howard
Ave
e 4
at 2
St way
gh
Hi

S 74th St

nw
re e
G
W Grange

Northw

W

S 46th

W Washington St

S 61st St

W

S 65th St

X
W
W
X
Stac
W
k Dr X
W
X
t
W
X
S
W tt
X
Benne
W
h W Bennett
t
4
7
Oklahoma Ave
W
Ave
W
X
S
Ave
W Lakefield Dr
WB
W Euclid Ave X
W
u rd
Ave ick
W
X

D

S 73rd St

S 76th St

S 79th St

S 78th St

I-94

S 65th St

W

S 68th St

y
ne y
Ho k P k
S 78th St W ree
C

Ave

r
Eat
on
S 76th St
Ln
S 76th St
S 76th St S 76th St
Eldon St

I-94

t
S 71st St S 71st St S 71st S

S 75th St

S 79th St

Overlook
D

RIVER

Map 5

STREAM CHANNEL AND BIOLOGICAL QUALITY CONDITIONS
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009

Streambed Conditions

Drop Structure
Dam

Concrete Lined
Enclosed

Streambank Conditions
Stable

Eroding

Not Assessed

Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
No Fish
NA (Not Applicable For
Quality Rating Due To
Sampling Gear)

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

E Dale
Ave

E Ramsey
Ave

I-94

W Washington St

W

S 79th St

rk
Pa d
R

S Logan Ave
S Lenox St
S Quincy
Ave

St

R
d
Cir Park
r
e
R
d
u
a
E G E Gauer
Cir

S Pine
Ave

S Burrell St

S Clement Ave
S Logan
Ave

S 1st St

Dr

S

k
La

e

D

r

0.5

E Norse
Ave

E Grange
E Grange
E Grange Ave Ave
Ave

S Illinois Ave

Dr

11th Ave

e
ksid
re e
SC
S Barland
Ave

Carroll Ct t
kS
Tamaricac
H kory St

S Lipton
Ave

ic
inn
i ck
nn
Ki Ave

E Birchwood
Ave

S Packard Ave

S0h
or
e

S Troy
Ave

#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*

S Illinois
Ave

S

Be
n
S India Ave net
t
na
Ave

E

St
E Jones
E Greenfield
Ave

S

E College Ave

S Iowa
Ave

State
Highway 38
S 1st St
3rd
St

W Boden St

St

E Edgerton
Ave

ll
na
hit
S W Ave
all
hitn
S W Ave S Barland
Ave

E Rusk
Ave
E Oklahoma
Hi St
Ave
gh ate
ve
wa
st A
e
r
c
l
l
y3
i
E Ohio
EH
2
o
i
h
O
Ave
E
e
Holt
E
v
A
E Vollmer Ave
E Carol St
E Morgan
Ave E Morgan
St
E
Ave
Ave
s
E Warnimont Franci
Ave
Ave
h
bet
liza e
nig
E
E Saveland
E Av E Koe
e
Ave
Av
nig
E Tripoli
oe
Van
E Howard E
E K ve
Ave
ck
A
Be
Ave
h
E Norwich
E Norwic Ave
E Norwich AveAveWaterford
Ave
E
E Denton Ave
E Denton
Ave
EL
E Leroy Ave
e ro
yA
ve Ave E Whittaker
Ave
E Van
E Van
Norman
Norman
r
Ave E Armou
Ave
Ave
E Cudahy
E Price Ave
SW
hitn Ave
E Layton
all A S
ve Wh E Layton Ave
Ave
Av itna
e ll
E Somers
Ave

S Arctic
St
Ave
len
El S Iowa
S
Ave
S Kansas
Ave

W Edgerton
Ave
E Joseph
M
Hutsteine
r Dr

n

S Arctic
Ave

E

Iro

S Kansas
Ave
S Iowa
Ave

o
EP
Pa
rk

S Logan
Ave

S 1st St

S 2nd St

I-43

S 6th St

S 5th St

W Uncas
Ave
W College
St
W College Ave Ave

E Otjen St
Ave
tter

ger
bar
th
or Line er
T
tw S
en e
W Av t
S
S S St
t
r
4
S S St ClaiSt
I-79
ay
lair
r Dr
C
tSB
arbo t
S Logan
4
ay S
SH
I-79
Ave
yS SB
r Dr
arbo
ry Dr E Ba cess Rd
S HS Carfer
Ac
S Aldrich St

S Adams
Ave

th
S4

S 6th St

#
*

E Smith St

I-794

dale
ose
W R Ave

te
Sta y 38
a
hw
Hig

I-43
Ct
S 5th

S 9th St

an
ad
a

S 7th St

S 18th St

Gr

S 6th St
S 7th St

t
nd S

W

S 12th St

t
S 16th S

KK-5

State H
ighway
ge
119
an
r
G e
W Av
r
i
W Grange Ave W A ay
W Grange Ave
KK-4
oW
g
r
a
e
t
C
W Klein
Sta y 119
a
Ave
hw
Hig
ion
itat
W Goldcrest
E C ay
W
Ave
W Iona Ter

W Upham
Ave

W Edgerton
Ave
W Abbott
Ave

n

W Cleveland
Ave

S 1st St S 1st St

W Becher St

o
ins
ob
S R Ave

RIVE R

S 2nd St S 2nd St

W Hayes
Ave

S 4th St I-43
S 5th St Pl
S 5th
S 6th St

#
*

S 14th St S 14th St
S 15th St
S 15th Pl
S 15th Pl
S 16th St

S 21st St

S 22

W Kimberly
Ave
W Mangold Ave
W Alvina
W Alvina Ave
Ave
W College Ave W College Ave

ey
on r
H kD
S ree
C

W Goldcrest
Ave W Ramsey
Ave

S 15th St

Parkway
Parkway Dr
Dr

43

W Becher St

S 7th St

t
S 17th S

st
re
Fo me
W Ho e
Av

KK-11

S Ace
Industrial Dr
5th
5th
794
794
5th 794
S Delaware
5th 794 In
5th 5th 794
ternation
Ave
al Dr
794
SN
S Indiana Ave
i
c
h
Ave
a
a
Indian
S
S Indian
o
S Illinois
Ave lson
Ave S Illinois
Ave
S Merill Ave Ave
S Robert Ave
S Elaine
14th Ave
S Barland
Ave
14th
Ave S Mc
Ave
Creedy
S Kingan
Ave
1th
S Packard
Ave
S Kingan
ve
S Packard Ave
Ave
Ave

W Bruce St
W National
W Pierce St
Ave
W Walker St
Acc
ess
W Mineral St
Rd

S Brust S
Kansas Ave
Ave
S Kansas Ave
S Ahmedi Ave

W Bruce St

St

W Scott St

3 II-4

S 11th St

S 17th St
S 18th St

S 20th Pl

S 22nd St S 22nd St

W Holmes
W Halsey Ave
Ave
W
W Edgerton
Edgerton
ton
W Edger
Ave
Ave
Ave

S 26th St

S 78th St

St
Oregon

rie
EE

S 21st St

S 24th St

W Grange
W Wanda Ave
Ave

S 22nd St
S 23rd St

St

hwood
W Birc
Ave

S 25th St S 25th

t

KK-6

S 24th St

#
*

W Lincoln W Lincoln
Ave
Ave
yes
W Ha
Ave W K
KINNICKINNIC R inni
ive cki
r P nni
ky c

S 26th St

S 28th St

rS
ine

y
S Hone
Dr
Creek

W Ramsey
Ave

ON

SM

#
*

ILS

S 36th St

W Edgerton
Ave

S 31st St

S Ka
telyn
Cir

S Layton
Blvd

W

S 34th St

Teakwood Dr
S 43rd St

Ln
Ln
ony
Sax

n
sh L
arbu
Sug
r
gD
ge
W Colle
rlin Ste
e
t
rling Ct
S
Ave
rk Ln
Skyla

S 31st St

S 35th St

n

S 33rd St

#
*

nic
nickin
W Kin er Pky
Riv

ry L
Sur

n
tto
Su

W College
Ave

W Edgerton
Ave

y
one
S H k Dr
Cree

S 48th St

e
sid
ke r
a
L D

t
S 45th S

W Edgerton
r
y D Ave

S 46th St

S 51st St

pia
ym
Ol Dr
y
Eastwa

Ox
for
Dr d
Oakwoo
d St

#
*

S 36th St

tional
W Na
Ave

S 28th St
S 29th St

W Mitchell St

t
S 38th S
S 40th St

R

Ln

er
Mill k S 43rd St
Par
y
Wa
S 46th St
S 47th St

C

rn
bu
ad

d St
t S 52n
S 53rd S K S 53rd St
S 54th St
EE

PARK

rle
Mo

LYONS

65th Ct

St

S 60th St

Stac
kD

S 44th St

S 46th

S 59th St

erial
S Imp
Cir

Sherwood
Rd

R

KK-2

S 57th St

Pl

S 65th St
Millbank Rd
Mead Rd

W Edgerton
Ave

l
rP
he
c
Be

S 57th St

l
th P
Stu

S 65th St

S 68th St

S 71st St

S 74th St

Root
River
Pky

W

S 61st St

er
re y

S 65th St

D

S 73rd St

S 76th St

r
Eat
on
S 76th St
Ln
S 76th St
S 76th St S 76th St
Eldon St

I-94

S 65th St

t
S 71st St S 71st St S 71st S

S 75th St

S 79th St
S 79th St
S 77th St
S 77th St S 78th St
S 78th St S 78th St
S