You are on page 1of 500

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

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

1.2

Key Elements of the Menomonee 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 ...................................................................... 1-14

1.3.8

Policy Issues .................................................................................................... 1-14

Tables
1-1

Public Health Targets and Foundation Actions ............................................................. 1-10

1-2

Habitat and Aesthetics Targets and Foundation Actions ............................................... 1-12

1-3

Nutrients Targets and Foundation Actions .................................................................... 1-13

Figures
1-1

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

i

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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 ................................................................................................. 2-13

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2-14

Tables
2-1

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

Figures
2-1

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

2-2

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

2-3

Framework for the Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan ................................ 2-10

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

Menomonee River

CHAPTER 3: BUILDING 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 and 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 - Menomonee River Watershed Action Team

3B

Participants - Menomonee River Watershed Action Team

iii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

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

4.2

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

4.3

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

4.4

Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Menomonee River Watershed .......... 4-23

4.5

Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds) ..................................................................... 4-26
4.5.1

North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1) ................. 4-26

4.5.2

Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5) ......... 4-42

4.5.3

West Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-3)........................... 4-77

4.5.4

Willow Creek (Assessment Point MN-4)........................................................ 4-92

4.5.5

Nor-X-Way Channel (Assessment Point MN-6)........................................... 4-107

4.5.6

Lilly Creek (Assessment Point MN-7) .......................................................... 4-126

4.5.7

Butler Ditch (Assessment Point MN-8) ........................................................ 4-141

4.5.8

Middle Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-9 and
MN-12) .......................................................................................................... 4-156

4.5.9

Little Menomonee Creek (Assessment Point MN-10).................................. 4-193

4.5.10 Little Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-11) .................................. 4-208
4.5.11 Underwood Creek Area (Assessment Points MN-13 and MN-14) .............. 4-225
4.5.12 Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-15 and
MN-17) ......................................................................................................... 4-257
4.5.13 Honey Creek (Assessment Point MN-16)..................................................... 4-297
4.5.14 Lower Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-18) ............... 4-316
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 .............................................................................................. 4-22

4-5

Total Baseline Assessment Point Area Loads ............................................................... 4-25

North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1)
4-6

Land Use in the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1) ..... 4-27

4-7

Civil Divisions in the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point

iv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Area (MN-1) .................................................................................................................. 4-30
4-8

Baseline Water Quality for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-1) ........................................................................................................................... 4-35

4-9

Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-36

4-10

Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-36

4-11

Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Units / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-37

4-12

Year 2020 Water Quality for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-1) ........................................................................................................................... 4-39

4-13

Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Units / Year) ............................................................................................................. 4-40

4-14

Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Percent)..................................................................................................................... 4-40

4-15

Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Units / Acre / Year) .................................................................................................. 4-41

Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5)
4-16

Land Use in the Upper Menomonee River (MN-2) Assessment Point Area................. 4-43

4-17

Civil Divisions in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) ........ 4-46

4-18

Baseline Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) ........................................................................................................................... 4-51

4-19

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-52

4-20

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-52

4-21

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................... 4-53

4-22

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Units / Year) .................................................................................................... 4-53

4-23

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-54

4-24

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Units / Acre / Year) ......................................................................................... 4-54

4-25

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) ........................................................................................................................... 4-56

v

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-26

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Unit
/ Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-57

4-27

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-57

4-28

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-58

4-29

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-58

4-30

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-59

4-31

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-59

4-32

Land Use in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) ................. 4-61

4-33

Civil Divisions in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) ........ 4-61

4-34

Baseline Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) ........................................................................................................................... 4-67

4-35

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-69

4-36

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-69

4-37

Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................... 4-70

4-38

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-70

4-39

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-71

4-40

Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-71

4-41

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) ........................................................................................................................... 4-73

4-42

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit
/ Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-74

4-43

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-74

4-44

Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-75

4-45

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-75

vi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-46

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-76

4-47

Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-76

West Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-3)
4-48

Land Use in the West Branch Menomonee River (MN-3) Assessment Point Area ...... 4-78

4-49

Civil Divisions in the West Branch Menomonee River (MN-3) Assessment Point
Area ............................................................................................................................... 4-80

4-50

Baseline Water Quality for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-3) ........................................................................................................................... 4-85

4-51

Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-86

4-52

Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-86

4-53

Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ........................................................................................................ 4-87

4-54

Year 2020 Water Quality for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-3) ........................................................................................................................... 4-89

4-55

Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-90

4-56

Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-90

4-57

Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ........................................................................................................ 4-91

Willow Creek (Assessment Point MN-4)
4-58

Land Use in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ................................... 4-93

4-59

Civil Division in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ............................ 4-95

4-60

Baseline Water Quality in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ........... 4-100

4-61

Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Year) . 4-101

4-62

Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Percent) ....... 4-101

4-63

Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-102

4-64

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ...... 4-104

4-65

Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-105

4-66

Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Percent) .... 4-105

vii

Watershed Restoration Plan

4-67

Menomonee River

Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-106

Nor-X-Way Channel (Assessment Point MN-6)
4-68

Land Use in the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) ...................... 4-108

4-69

Civil Divisions in the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) ............. 4-110

4-70

Baseline Water Quality for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)4-115

4-71

Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-120

4-72

Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-120

4-73

Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-121

4-74

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area
(MN-6) ......................................................................................................................... 4-123

4-75

Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-124

4-76

Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-124

4-77

Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-125

Lilly Creek (Assessment Point MN-7)
4-78

Land Use in the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) ..................................... 4-127

4-79

Civil Divisions in the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) ............................ 4-129

4-80

Baseline Water Quality for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7).............. 4-134

4-81

Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Year) ..... 4-135

4-82

Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Percent) ........... 4-135

4-83

Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-136

4-84

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7)........... 4-138

4-85

Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Year) .. 4-139

4-86

Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Percent) ........ 4-139

4-87

Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-140

Butler Ditch (Assessment Point MN-8)
4-88

Land Use in the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) .................................... 4-142

viii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-89

Civil Divisions in the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ........................... 4-144

4-90

Baseline Water Quality for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ............ 4-149

4-91

Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Year) ... 4-150

4-92

Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Percent) ......... 4-150

4-93

Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-151

4-94

Year 2020 Water Quality for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ......... 4-153

4-95

Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Year) 4-154

4-96

Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Percent) ...... 4-154

4-97

Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-155

Middle Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-9 and MN-12)
4-98

Land Use in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) ......................................................................................................................... 4-157

4-99

Civil Divisions in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) ......................................................................................................................... 4-159

4-100 Baseline Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-9) ................................................................................................................ 4-165
4-101 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................... 4-167
4-102 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Percent) ......................................................................................................... 4-167
4-103 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year)......................................................................................... 4-168
4-104 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................. 4-168
4-105 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Percent) ....................................................................................... 4-169
4-106 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................... 4-169
4-107 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-9) ................................................................................................................ 4-171
4-108 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................... 4-172
4-109 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Percent) ......................................................................................................... 4-172

ix

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-110 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year)......................................................................................... 4-173
4-111 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................. 4-173
4-112 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Percent) ....................................................................................... 4-174
4-113 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................... 4-174
4-114 Land Use in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) ....................................................................................................................... 4-176
4-115 Civil Divisions in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) ....................................................................................................................... 4-178
4-116 Baseline Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-12) .............................................................................................................. 4-183
4-117 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-185
4-118 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-185
4-119 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-186
4-120 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-186
4-121 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-187
4-122 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-187
4-123 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-12) .............................................................................................................. 4-189
4-124 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-190
4-125 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-190
4-126 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-191
4-127 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-191
4-128 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-192

x

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-129 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-192
Little Menomonee Creek (Assessment Point MN-10)
4-130 Land Use in the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) ............. 4-194
4-131 Civil Division in the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) ...... 4-196
4-132 Baseline Water Quality for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-10) ....................................................................................................................... 4-201
4-133 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-202
4-134 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-202
4-135 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-203
4-136 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN10) ................................................................................................................................ 4-205
4-137 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-206
4-138 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-206
4-139 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-207
Little Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-11)
4-140 Land Use in the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) .............. 4-209
4-141 Civil Divisions in the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) ..... 4-211
4-142 Baseline Water Quality for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) ....................................................................................................................... 4-216
4-143 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-217
4-144 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-217
4-145 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-218
4-146 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-218
4-147 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-219

xi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-148 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-219
4-149 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN11) ................................................................................................................................ 4-221
4-150 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-222
4-151 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-222
4-152 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-223
4-153 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-223
4-154 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-224
4-155 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-224
Underwood Creek Area (Assessment Points MN-13 and MN-14)
4-156 Land Use in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) ........................ 4-226
4-157 Civil Divisions in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) ............... 4-228
4-158 Baseline Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-13) ....................................................................................................................... 4-233
4-159 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-234
4-160 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-234
4-161 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-235
4-162 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-13) ....................................................................................................................... 4-237
4-163 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-238
4-164 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-238
4-165 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-239
4-166 Land Use in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) ........................ 4-241
4-167 Civil Divisions in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) ............... 4-243

xii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-168 Baseline Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-14) ....................................................................................................................... 4-248
4-169 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-249
4-170 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-249
4-171 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-250
4-172 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-250
4-173 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-251
4-174 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-251
4-175 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-14) ....................................................................................................................... 4-253
4-176 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-254
4-177 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-254
4-178 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-255
4-179 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-255
4-180 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-256
4-181 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-256
Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-15 and MN-17)
4-182 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) ....................................................................................................................... 4-258
4-183 Civil Divisions in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) ................................................................................................................................ 4-260
4-184 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-15) .............................................................................................................. 4-265
4-185 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-266

xiii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-186 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-266
4-187 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Unit / Acre / Year) ................................................................................................ 4-267
4-188 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-267
4-189 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-268
4-190 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-268
4-191 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-15) .............................................................................................................. 4-270
4-192 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-271
4-193 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-271
4-194 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-272
4-195 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-272
4-196 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-273
4-197 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-273
4-198 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) ....................................................................................................................... 4-275
4-199 Civil Division in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) ................................................................................................................................ 4-277
4-200 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-17) .............................................................................................................. 4-283
4-201 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-289
4-202 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-289
4-203 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Unit / Acre / Year) ................................................................................................ 4-290
4-204 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-290

xiv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-205 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-291
4-206 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-291
4-207 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-17) .............................................................................................................. 4-293
4-208 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-294
4-209 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-294
4-210 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-295
4-211 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-295
4-212 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-296
4-213 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-296
Honey Creek (Assessment Point MN-16)
4-214 Land Use in the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ................................ 4-298
4-215 Civil Divisions in the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ....................... 4-300
4-216 Baseline Water Quality for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ......... 4-305
4-217 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Year) 4-310
4-218 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Percent) ...... 4-310
4-219 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-311
4-220 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ...... 4-313
4-221 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-314
4-222 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Percent) ... 4-314
4-223 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-315
4-224 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) ....................................................................................................................... 4-317
4-225 Civil Divisions in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) ................................................................................................................................ 4-319

xv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-226 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-18) .............................................................................................................. 4-324
4-227 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-325
4-228 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-325
4-229 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Unit / Acre / Year) ............................................................................................... 4-326
4-230 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-326
4-231 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-327
4-232 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-327
4-233 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-18) .............................................................................................................. 4-329
4-234 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-330
4-235 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-330
4-236 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-331
4-237 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre) ............................................................................... 4-331
4-238 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-332
4-239 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-332
Figures
4-1

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

4-2

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 .................................................................. 4-19

4-7

MN Watershed .............................................................................................................. 4-28

4-8

MN-1 Land Use Map ..................................................................................................... 4-29

xvi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-9

MN-1 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................. 4-32

4-10

MN-1 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................ 4-33

4-11

MN-1 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ....................................................... 4-34

4-12

MN-2 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 4-44

4-13

MN-5 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 4-45

4-14

MN-2 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................. 4-48

4-15

MN-2 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................ 4-49

4-16

MN-2 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ....................................................... 4-50

4-17

MN-5 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................. 4-64

4-18

MN-5 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................ 4-65

4-19

MN-5 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ....................................................... 4-66

4-20

MN-5 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations.................................................................. 4-68

4-21

MN-3 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 4-79

4-22

MN-3 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................. 4-82

4-23

MN-3 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................ 4-83

4-24

MN-3 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ....................................................... 4-84

4-25

MN-4 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 4-94

4-26

MN-4 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................................. 4-97

4-27

MN-4 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................ 4-98

4-28

MN-4 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ....................................................... 4-99

4-29

MN-6 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4-109

4-30

MN-6 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................... 4-112

4-31

MN-6 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations .......................................................... 4-113

4-32

MN-6 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ..................................................... 4-114

4-33

MN-6 Measured Conductivity ..................................................................................... 4-116

4-34

MN-6 Measured Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................ 4-117

4-35

MN-6 Measured Turbidity ........................................................................................... 4-118

4-36

MN-6 Measured Temperature...................................................................................... 4-119

4-37

MN-7 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4-128

4-38

MN-7 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................... 4-131

4-39

MN-7 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations .......................................................... 4-132

4-40

MN-7 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ..................................................... 4-133

xvii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-41

MN-8 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4-143

4-42

MN-8 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................... 4-146

4-43

MN-8 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations .......................................................... 4-147

4-44

MN-8 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ..................................................... 4-148

4-45

MN-9 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4-158

4-46

MN-9 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................... 4-162

4-47

MN-9 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations .......................................................... 4-163

4-48

MN-9 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ..................................................... 4-164

4-49

MN-9 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations................................................................ 4-166

4-50

MN-12 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-177

4-51

MN-12 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-180

4-52

MN-12 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-181

4-53

MN-12 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-182

4-54

MN-12 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations.............................................................. 4-184

4-55

MN-10 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-195

4-56

MN-10 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-198

4-57

MN-10 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-199

4-58

MN-10 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-200

4-59

MN-11 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-210

4-60

MN-11 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-213

4-61

MN-11 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-214

4-62

MN-11 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-215

4-63

MN-13 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-227

4-64

MN-13 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-230

4-65

MN-13 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-231

4-66

MN-13 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-232

4-67

MN-14 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-242

4-68

MN-14 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-245

4-69

MN-14 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-246

4-70

MN-14 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-247

4-71

MN-15 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-259

4-72

MN-15 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-262

xviii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4-73

MN-15 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-263

4-74

MN-15 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-264

4-75

MN-17 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-276

4-76

MN-17 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-280

4-77

MN-17 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-281

4-78

MN-17 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-282

4-79

MN-17 Flow Based Chloride Concentrations.............................................................. 4-284

4-80

MN-17 Measured Conductivity ................................................................................... 4-285

4-81

MN-17 Measured Dissolved Oxygen .......................................................................... 4-286

4-82

MN-17 Measured Turbidity ......................................................................................... 4-287

4-83

MN-17 Measured Temperature.................................................................................... 4-288

4-84

MN-16 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-299

4-85

MN-16 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-302

4-86

MN-16 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-303

4-87

MN-16 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-304

4-88

MN-16 Measured Conductivity ................................................................................... 4-306

4-89

MN-16 Measured Dissolved Oxygen .......................................................................... 4-307

4-90

MN-16 Measured Turbidity ......................................................................................... 4-308

4-91

MN-16 Measured Temperature.................................................................................... 4-309

4-92

MN-18 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-318

4-93

MN-18 Daily Fecal Coliform Concentrations ............................................................. 4-321

4-94

MN-18 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations ........................................................ 4-322

4-95

MN-18 Flow Based Fecal Coliform Concentrations ................................................... 4-323

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 Menomonee River Watershed

xix

Watershed Restoration Plan

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

5.4

Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation ............................ 5-15

5.5

Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update but Not Yet Implemented .................................................... 5-25

5.6

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5-29

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 ............................... 5-16
5-3 Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update but not yet Implemented ......................................................... 5-26
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

xx

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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 ............. 6-19

6.3

Prioritization of Management Measures ........................................................................ 6-20

6.4

Water Quality Improvements Estimated with the Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update .................................................................................................................... 6-20

6.5

Allocations ..................................................................................................................... 6-24

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 Menomonee River....................................... 6-22
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 Year 2000 Baseline .. 6-5

xxi

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

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

7.2

7.1.1

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

7.1.2

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

7.1.3

Additional Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation, but
Not Yet Implemented ........................................................................................ 7-4

Identification of Priority Actions ..................................................................................... 7-4

7.3

7.2.1

Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria (Table 7-1) .................... 7-10

7.2.2

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

7.2.3

Priority Actions to Address Instream-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 ......................................................... 7-14

7-2 Priority Actions to Address Land-based Measures ........................................................... 7-18
7-3 Priority Actions to Address Instream-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 Menomonee River Watershed ..................... 7-12
Appendices
7A

Planning for Riparian and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat

xxii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ............................................................... 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 ........................................................................................................... 8-28

8.2.3

New Actions - How to Begin the Process (Implementation Measures) ......... 8-29

8.2.4

Implementation Schedule and Process............................................................ 8-32

Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 8-32
8.3.1

Local Governments ......................................................................................... 8-34

8.3.2

State Governments .......................................................................................... 8-34

8.3.3

Federal Government........................................................................................ 8-34

8.3.4

Detailed Data on Federal Funding Source ...................................................... 8-35

8.3.5

Private ............................................................................................................. 8-37

8.3.6

Funding Summary........................................................................................... 8-37

8.4

Watershed Policy Issues ................................................................................................ 8-37

8.5

Post-Implementation Monitoring ................................................................................... 8-38

8.6

8.5.1

Use of Adaptive Management ........................................................................ 8-38

8.5.2

Measuring Success .......................................................................................... 8-38

8.5.3

Data Gaps ........................................................................................................ 8-39

8.5.4

Implementation Monitoring ............................................................................ 8-40

8.5.5

Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................ 8-40

Progress Evaluation and Refinement ............................................................................. 8-41

Tables
8-1

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

8-2 Underway (Action is Funded and Underway) .................................................................... 8-6
8-3 Initialed Actions ................................................................................................................ 8-14
8-4 Future Actions Recommended in the Watershed Restoration Plan for the
Menomonee River Watershed........................................................................................... 8-19
8-5 Action Plan Steps for Actions Underway (Table 8-2) or Initiated (Table 8-3) ................ 8-28
8-6 Action Plan Steps for New Actions (Tables 8-3 and 8-4) ................................................ 8-30
8-7 Funding Program Name: Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants (319 Program) ........ 8-35

xxiii

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Figures
8-1 WRP Action Plan for new Actions/Projects ..................................................................... 8-33
Appendices
8A Appendix U: Potential Funding Programs to Implement Plan Recommendations. A
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds
(SEWRPC, 2007)
8B
8C

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

xxiv

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 1: Menomonee 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
Menomonee 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 Menomonee 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
Menomonee River Watershed Action Team (WAT) and Science Committee.
1.2
Key Elements of the Menomonee 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 Menomonee River watershed.
The chapter‟s maps, descriptions, and tables provide data on the Menomonee 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

Menomonee River

1-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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
Menomonee 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 Menomonee
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 that the Menomonee 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
Menomonee 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 Menomonee River watershed. The factsheets were developed to enhance the

1-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

public‟s understanding of and connection to the Menomonee River watershed and will assist
with implementation.
6) Implementation schedule
Chapter 7: Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority Actions
addresses the schedule element. To enhance stakeholder understanding and the potential for
improved water quality and habitat, this WRP distills future actions into priority action
tables for each focus area. The chapter also presents a foundation action table that lists the
predecessor actions that should be implemented to realize the full potential of subsequent
actions. Chapter 7‟s tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five
years to continue improving water quality within the Menomonee River watershed. Chapter
8: Implementation Strategy also directly speaks to the schedule element. Chapter 8 presents
an overview of this 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 Menomonee River watershed. In terms of habitat improvements, Chapter 3: Building
Partnerships presents a comprehensive discussion of the stakeholders‟ criteria for
improvements to habitat within the watershed. Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy
incorporates discussions of criteria within the context of post implementation monitoring
including adaptive management, success measurement, implementation and effectiveness
monitoring as well as progress evaluation and recalibration
9) Monitoring component to evaluate effectiveness of implementation
The monitoring element is addressed in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy. In addition to
summarizing the status of all of the various water quality and habitat-based actions that have
been recently completed, are underway, initiated or are planned or recommended, Chapter 8
of this WRP also includes discussions of post-implementation monitoring and progress
evaluation and refinement.
In summary, this WRP uses the watershed planning process found in the federal program
guidance for Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the specific recommended actions are
based upon those recommended in the RWQMPU. This WRP is intended to be a flexible

1-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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 Menomonee River watershed.
a. Bacteria/Public Health
Fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator of pathogens, or microscopic organisms that can make
people sick. The WAT and the Science Committee agreed that public health should be a top
priority of this WRP. High levels of fecal coliform are more of a concern during warm
weather months because that is when people contact the water in the stream the most. One of
the biggest concerns in the Menomonee River watershed is the unknown sources of fecal
coliform.
b. Habitat/Aesthetics
The WAT and Science Committee stressed that habitat issues include physical features as
well as water quality components. Physical features, such as concrete-lined channels and
restoration of watersheds with buffers are important, but the consensus was that this WRP
should consider a wide range of habitat-based parameters. This WRP acknowledges that
aesthetic improvement does not always relate directly to water quality or habitat
improvement, but in many cases they are linked. The major habitat considerations are
summarized below:
Manmade channels/concrete channels - The WAT and Science Committee suggested
that concrete linings be removed and stream channels be naturalized (including specific
reaches). Other suggestions include removing streams from enclosed conduit (stream
daylighting) and re-introduction of stream meanders. While daylighting streams and
introducing meanders would immediately improve habitat along the stream, potential
impacts to public safety and flooding need to be considered.
In-stream conditions - The WAT and Science Committee made suggestions regarding
improvements to in-stream conditions. Note that at the request of the SWWT Science
Committee, SEWRPC staff assessed habitat conditions and provided recommendations to
address habitat issues of concern from the perspective of both the land-based and instream-based conditions, and were distinguished as such. For a complete summary of
biological and habitat conditions from year 2000 to 2009 as well as the recommended
prioritization strategy and priority actions see Appendix 4A (SEWRPC MR-194).
Examples of the habitat-based considerations include the following:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Free of trash
Increase pools and riffles
Decrease flashiness and thermal discharges
1-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

No fish advisories
Reduce unnatural solids in streambed and improve clarity of water
Less salt
Seawalls/fish condos – look at the lower portion of the Menomonee River to
create habitat
Plant wild rice in the Burnham Canal (Milwaukee Riverkeeper is undertaking a
pilot project)
Restore original meanders upstream of 115th Street
No fecal coliforms
Increase levels of DO
Decrease nutrient loads
Remove invasive species
Clean up Superfund sites such as Little Menomonee River
Riparian areas – The lands adjacent to the Menomonee River stream banks protect and
buffer the stream from pollutants. To maximize their protective benefits, the WAT
suggested that riparian areas be kept vegetated. Natural vegetation should be managed to
enhance biological diversity and support recreational use needs. Riparian areas should be
expanded to a minimum of 75 feet and structures should be removed from riparian areas
that are located within the floodplain. Other WAT suggestions for improving riparian
areas along the Menomonee River include the following:
Construct and restore wetlands
Improve public access to river (indirect improvement through increased
recreational use and awareness of the river)
Remove invasive species and improve diversity
Reduce or eliminate nutrient inputs from manure spreading in rural areas
In-stream and riparian areas:
For projects, start at the headwaters and work progressively downstream
More aquatic life diversity, plants and animals that would use the waters in a safe
manner
c. Nutrients/Phosphorus
In-stream phosphorus concentrations vary throughout the Menomonee River watershed.
While there do not appear to be many problems with algal growth within the watershed,
phosphorus has been identified as an issue along the nearshore area of Lake Michigan.
1.3.2 Baseline Year 2000 Conditions
The characterization of the Baseline Year 2000 conditions within the Menomonee River
watershed was a crucial step in this WRP planning process. A large amount of data was

1-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

compiled for each of the 18 assessment point areas included in the watershed (see Chapter 4). A
few important planning considerations emerged from the analysis of the baseline data:
The watershed contains rural and highly developed urban areas, which will be a critical
consideration during implementation.
Analysis of the baseline loading data revealed the importance of identifying unknown
sources of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
The baseline characterization also highlighted the predominant role of nonpoint sources
with respect to nutrient loading. However, the analysis also revealed the need to
consider non-contact cooling water and the role of phosphorus compounds in drinking
water when identifying priority actions to curb nutrient loading.
Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed. This
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 Menomonee River watershed is predicated on the assumption that
the existing regulations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be implemented (see
Table 5-1 in Chapter 5 for an accounting of existing regulations; examples include Point Source
Control, Combined Sewer Overflow/Separate Sewer Overflow (CSO/SSO) Reduction Program,
and Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management (non-Ag only). In other
words, the analysis assumes the recommended management strategies used to meet these
regulations, identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan and 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

1-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

the following bullets. These bullets present cumulative load reductions from the major
components of the RWQMPU:
Total phosphorus and BOD loads decrease from Baseline Year 2000 to the Year 2020
with planned growth condition whereas TSS and fecal coliform loads slightly increase.
Implementation of Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management (non-Agriculture
[Ag] only), recommended in the RWQMPU, results in an 11% decrease in TP loads, a
24% decrease in TSS loads, a 14% decrease in BOD loads, and an 18% decrease in fecal
coliform loads, relative to the Year 2020 with planned growth condition.
Building on the load reductions due to NR 151 (non-Ag only), the implementation of the
Point Source Plan, as called for under the RWQMPU, results in additional load
reductions of 1% for TP, 0.3% for TSS, 1% for BOD, and 3% for fecal coliform, relative
to the Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) condition.
Building on the load reductions due to NR 151 (non-Ag only) and the Point Source Plan,
implementation of the remaining measures in the recommended RWQMPU results in
additional load reductions of 4% for TP, 2% for TSS and BOD, and 29% for fecal
coliform relative to the Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) and Point Source Plan (5Year LOP) conditions.
The expected load reductions for the Menomonee River watershed were estimated from the
modeling that was completed in support of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and this WRP. In some
ways, these load reductions represent an upper estimate of the load reductions that could be
achieved in the watershed because they are based on full implementation of a variety of
management measures from the RWQMPU that were then incorporated into this WRP as
actions. However, several management measures included in this WRP were not included in the
model runs (e.g. the statewide ban on phosphorus in fertilizers). It is therefore possible that load
reductions greater than those modeled for the RWQMPU could eventually be realized.
Despite significant projected load reductions, water quality modeling presented in Chapter 6
indicates that modeled year 2020 water quality assessments or scores generally show minor
improvements or no change, although in some instances, water quality exhibits minor
deterioration. Reduced loading does not necessarily directly translate to an improved water
quality score because, in some cases, the baseline water quality is considerably degraded. This
occurs because the scores are based on the percentage of time that compliance with standards is
met. Reduced loading will improve water quality, but if compliance with water quality standard
is still only met 70% of the time, the water quality will still be scored as poor. The most
pronounced change to the assessment of year 2020 water quality within the Menomonee River
watershed is the improved score for TSS within about half of the assessment point areas.
1.3.5 Prioritization of Actions
The three focus areas determined by the 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.

1-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

a. Public Health
The SWWT committees identified protection of human health as the most important water
quality goal of this WRP. Reducing bacterial loads is a critical element because many locations
in the Menomonee River watershed frequently do not meet existing bacterial water quality
criteria, which means there is a greater risk of getting sick when contacting the water. In
addition to swift and comprehensive action to address significant sources of bacterial loading,
this WRP endorses the enhancement of safe recreation within the Menomonee River. Table 1-1
presents the Menomonee River WRP‟s foundation actions to improve and address public health
with respect to water quality in the Menomonee River watershed. Foundation actions are a
subset of the priority actions identified in Chapter 7. These actions are considered to be
predecessor actions to be completed first in order to realize the full benefit of the other actions
identified in this WRP.

1-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 1-1
PUBLIC HEALTH TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets to be
Accomplished by 2015

Foundation Actions
1a. Conduct dry weather surveys to identify outfalls
that have dry weather flows

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

1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human
bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples)
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

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. Develop focused programs to assess the impacts
of older septic systems on water quality
3c. Manage pet litter

3. Reduce bacteria sources from landbased

3d. Implement programs to discourage unacceptably
high numbers of waterfowl from congregating near
water features - identify areas and take action to
discourage waterfowl feeding
3e. 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)
3f. Initiate municipal, county and SWWT education
programs to educate public on sources of bacteria
and actions they can implement to reduce loads to
streams
3g. Provide 6 months manure storage
3h. Prevent cattle from directly accessing streams
3i. Convert marginal crop land to wetland or prairie
3j. Preserve highly productive agriculture land
3k. Control barnyard runoff
3l. Maintain and preserve Environmentally Significant
Lands

1-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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
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 Menomonee 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 bacteria sources from land-based sources
This WRP recommends actions identified to address agricultural sources of fecal coliform
bacteria such as manure and barnyard runoff and other livestock management strategies. Actions
also include enhancing riparian buffers and assessing the impacts of older septic systems.
Recommended actions also include those to address urban sources of fecal coliform, including
pet waste and waterfowl as well as projects that 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 Menomonee 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.

1-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 1-2
HABITAT AND AESTHETICS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS

Watershed Targets

Foundation Actions
1a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs

Land-based

1b. Implement new pilot road salt reduction programs

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

1c. Implement road salt reduction program education

2. Reduce water quality and quantity
impacts using green infrastructure

2a. Implement green infrastructure to reduce runoff

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

1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the
mainstem
1b. Develop plans for removal and/or retrofitting of
five low-gradient structures on the North
Menomonee River Parkway between Swan
Boulevard and Harmonee Avenue and implement
the plans
1c. Develop plans for removal of additional
obstructions on the mainstem or tributaries and
implement the plans
1d. Develop detailed assessments to expand
passage restoration efforts beyond the mainstem
to the tributaries, prioritize them, and implement
them

Reduce nonpoint water quality impacts (focus on chlorides)
This is one of two foundation targets that address land-based habitat and aesthetics within the
Menomonee River watershed. This WRP‟s analysis of habitat impairments revealed the
important role of chlorides in the Menomonee 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.
Reduce impacts through green infrastructure
The other land-based target to address habitat and aesthetics within the Menomonee 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.
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
watershed. While restoration efforts are critical in the lower reaches, this WRP also recommends

1-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

that fish passage restoration efforts are expanded to upstream tributaries. This WRP is also
responsive to the need to restore connectivity with adjacent floodplains and the restoration of
more natural hydrology by re-creating more meandering stream courses.
c. Nutrients
Phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan (and to a lesser extent within the Menomonee River
watershed) has also been identified as a priority issue to be addressed by this WRP, and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is in the process of developing water
quality standards for phosphorus. The most significant sources of phosphorus are believed to be
from non-contact cooling water discharges and urban stormwater runoff. Table 1-3 presents the
specific nutrient-related Foundation actions that are recommended by this WRP:
TABLE 1-3
NUTRIENTS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets

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

1. Reduce phosphorus loads from
regulated discharges (actions were
ranked low to high in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

1b. Implement projects and programs to comply with
MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction
requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in
coincidental TP reduction)
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

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 other pollutants, such as
(polychlorinated biphenyls) PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrogen, copper, and
pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs), also affect water quality within the

1-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Menomonee River watershed. Although this WRP does not identify or prioritize specific actions
to address these other pollutants, several of the recommended actions identified to address the
three focus areas would result in coincident loading reductions of the other pollutants. For
example, the expansion of riparian buffers to improve habitat and increase phosphorus removal
from stormwater would also simultaneously lead to some reductions in nitrogen loadings. More
specific actions to address PCBs, PAHs, nitrogen, copper, and PPCPs will be identified when
future updates of this WRP are developed.
1.3.7 Implementation and Monitoring
Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy is the final chapter of this WRP. This chapter addresses the
implementation of the various actions identified in Chapter 7. This WRP stresses the importance
of addressing funding issues and sources (see Appendix 8A) as well as post implementation
monitoring. Follow-up monitoring recommendations are also included in this WRP because
additional data will be needed to fulfill three primary objectives: (1) obtain additional data to
address information gaps and uncertainty in the current analysis, (2) ensure that the identified
management actions are undertaken, and (3) ensure that actions are having the desired effect.
Implementation activities will then be adjusted based on this new information through the use of
an adaptive management framework to be coordinated by the SWWT.
1.3.8 Policy Issues
Policy issues need to be addressed as projects are considered for implementation. The following
issues compose the initial list to be considered:
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development: Evaluation should include the timing
of any TMDLs, leadership of the TMDLs in terms of regulatory agencies
(WDNR/USEPA) versus “third party” (led by public agencies such as the MMSD) and
the exact format of the TMDLs (i.e., which pollutants and which portions of the
watershed). An additional potential issue is the regulatory relationship between NR 151
and TMDLs, as noted in Chapter 2 of this WRP.
Consideration of watershed permits: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are
summarized in the document White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting
Primer found in Appendix 8B.
Water quality trading: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are summarized in
Appendix 8C.
NR 151 implementation: The regulatory and financial issues regarding implementation
of NR 151 may influence the effectiveness of this regulation on water quality and the
implementation of this WRP.
Alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water: There are policy issues
that should be addressed as this major source of phosphorous to the watershed is not
currently the focus of any scientific or regulatory program.
Alternative indicator to replace fecal coliform bacteria: The policy implications of
building a local consensus for and support of new methods to assess water borne disease
risk need to be addressed.

1-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 2: Introduction
2.1

Purpose of the Watershed Restoration Plan

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

Menomonee 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
2%

Industrial
< 0.1%

SSOs
4%
CSOs
10%

Urban
Nonpoint
Stormw ater
84%

FIGURE 2-1: ANNUAL BACTERIA LOAD PERCENTAGES BY SOURCE CATEGORY TO THE
MENOMONEE 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

Menomonee River

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

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

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

Menomonee River

Input received at the workshop was intended to result in the formation of a technically- and
socially-feasible integrated watershed implementation plan that has the support of key
stakeholders, employing innovative implementation approaches (e.g., water quality trading,
watershed-based permitting, phased total maximum daily loads (TMDL)s, wet weather water
quality standards) intended to effectively and efficiently attain water quality standards in the
GMW. As a result of this workshop and many subsequent meetings in 2007, the MMSD,
working in concert with the USEPA and the WDNR, considered the initiation of a third party
TMDL effort.
The drivers for the third party TMDL were that the WDNR was not planning to initiate any
TMDL work in the GMW for many years and the implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural
Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management, a state of Wisconsin nonpoint pollution regulation
with compliance deadlines in 2008 and 2013. An additional concern was that the water quality
improvement efforts begun under the WQI should continue given the work already accomplished
and the momentum established in the community. This momentum was exemplified by the
formation of a new collaborative organization, the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.,
in the spring of 2008.
2.3.2 Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and NR 151
In October 2007, the MMSD Commission approved a contract with the 2020 FP technical team
to conduct third party TMDLs for the major watersheds in Milwaukee – the Milwaukee River,
Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River and Estuary/Lake Michigan watersheds.
Once this effort was approved, preliminary negotiations began with the WDNR staff to enlist
their input into the process and to begin technical discussions on the existing 303(d) listed
pollutants and other matters (see the 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 solids (TSS)
loads by 20% by 2008 and 40% by 2013 from areas of existing development. New development
must implement stormwater management practices to reduce the TSS load from the site by 80%.
Technical standards have been developed by the state to implement the prescribed performance
standards. Other provisions of the regulations prescribe performance standards and prohibitions
for agricultural facilities and agricultural practices that are nonpoint sources and require
implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) when and if the Wisconsin
legislature provides funding for these facilities.
The MMSD and its technical team discussed with the WDNR the relationship between the third
party TMDL effort and the NR 151 regulatory requirements, which are essentially technologybased requirements. Discussions between the MMSD and the WDNR regarding application of
1

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

2-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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

Menomonee 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 from 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

Menomonee River

contribute to a “bottom up” approach. The technical team based its idea on the analysis of
existing water quality data in the watersheds studied during the WQI planning project. Also, the
detailed water quality models developed during the WQI planning project were used to assess the
impact of NR 151 on water quality. Two model runs were developed using identical
assumptions except one model run assumed full implementation (urban measures only) of NR
151, and the second run assumed no implementation of NR 151.
A further concern existed regarding the lack of a water quality standard for TSS in Wisconsin.
The closest proxy that can be found is the United States Geological Service (USGS) “reference
concentration” for TSS. This estimate was used by the WDNR as the basis for TSS TMDLs in
other parts of the state. The “reference concentration” for TSS, based upon the USGS analysis of
watersheds in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, was expressed as a median concentration of
17.2 mg/l.3 The existing year 2000 model run, as summarized in SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU,
showed the following with regard to the existing condition model output:4
The RWQMPU water quality simulation model looked at 18 assessment points in the
Menomonee River watershed. None of the assessment points had median TSS
concentrations that exceeded the USGS reference concentration TSS level of 17.2 mg/l.
The average of all the medians was 6.9 mg/l TSS and the median values ranged from 4.6
to 11.2 mg/l TSS. The means averaged 14.5 mg/l TSS with a range from 7.9 to 24.7
mg/l TSS.
One significant result of these water quality model runs was that the TSS concentrations
in the Menomonee River watershed under existing conditions were below the USGS
reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l TSS as a median value. Appendix N of the
RWQMPU also shows other water quality parameters studied, as well as the RWQMPU
revised year 2020 baseline, the revised baseline with the MMSD action of a five-year
level of protection (LOP) for SSOs, and the two RWQMPU conditions – one, the
conditions of the recommended plan and two, the “extreme measures” condition. This
analysis shows that even with the “extreme measures” condition (implementation of
many water quality improvement actions above and beyond NR 151 requirements), the
concentration of TSS is not materially changed.
The data on the existing water quality runs as well as the revised 2020 baseline with and
without NR 151 are shown in Appendix 2B. The model runs shown are only for the
MMSD assessment points, which are a subset of the RWQMPU assessment points and
consist of five assessment points in the Menomonee River. Table 2-1 shows the results
of the model run on TSS "with" NR 151 and "without" NR 151.
Note: To maintain consistency with the RWQMPU, referenced above, the preceding sections use
„existing‟ to describe year 2000 data. Elsewhere in this WRP, the term „baseline‟ is used to
indicate year 2000 pollutant loading and water quality data.

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

Menomonee River
TABLE 2-1

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

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-16

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised
2020
Baseline
(No NR
151)

Revised
2020
Baseline
(W/ NR
151)

Difference

NR 151
Impact

-0.2
-0.3

-2.8%
-2.6%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

6.0
10.1

5.8
9.9

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

360

361

1

0.2%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

5.8
14.2

5.1
12.9

-0.7
-1.3

-11.7%
-9.1%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

351

353

2

0.6%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

5.1
12.1

4.4
10.9

-0.7
-1.2

-13.6%
-9.8%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

355

356

1

0.4%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

5.8
14.3

4.9
13.2

-0.8
-1.1

-14.7%
-8.0%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

350

351

1

0.4%

Median
Mean

mg / L
mg / L

5.5
14.2

4.8
13.1

-0.7
-1.1

-12.7%
-7.5%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

350

351

1

0.3%

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

The data show that NR 151 does improve TSS concentrations in a range from about 2% to 15%
in the Menomonee River watershed, but the median TSS concentrations are already well below
the reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l.
The impact of NR 151 on fecal coliform levels, as shown in Appendix 2B data, is insignificant as
the improvement in the percent of time the standard is met in the typical year is no greater than
1% at any of the assessment points in the Menomonee River watershed. The most frequently
exceeded water quality parameter analyzed for the WQI in the GMW was compliance with the
existing fecal coliform water quality standards. Thus, based upon the data produced in the
RWQMPU, the imposition of NR 151 will have essentially no impact on fecal coliform
compliance. Information regarding fecal coliform pollution and actions that can help address it
are provided in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Given this complex situation, including the fact that the WDNR was in the process of evaluating
the NR 151 regulation and that the timetable for implementation of the regulation may be
lengthened, the MMSD and the technical team decided to pursue a different path for the
development of the detailed implementation plan for the WQI. This path, illustrated in Figure 23, was to develop a WRP instead of a third party TMDL.

2-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

This effort was based upon the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.5 The effort mirrors the TMDL
concept, but did not result in an actual TMDL or have the regulatory impact of a TMDL. This
effort began in July 2008.
The MMSD chose this route for the following reasons:
The steps are basically the same whether doing a TMDL or a plan that follows the CWA
section 319 guidelines (section 319 plan).
Many grant programs exist to facilitate the development of a section 319 plan.
A section 319 plan produces estimates of load reductions and end points similar to what a
TMDL would produce.
The work product of a section 319 plan can eventually be revised and used as the basis
for a TMDL.
These plans do not have the regulatory impact of a TMDL; thus, they offer different
pathways to get to watershed permits, trading, etc.
Finally, the WDNR has already developed an innovative approach to watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL called an Environmental Accountability Project (EAP).
Although an EAP is not a viable option for the Menomonee River watershed because of
the complex water quality issues being addressed, it is an example of watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL. Similar to the idea behind the development of the WRP,
the WDNR and USEPA Region 5 have developed this approach, which avoids the need
for a TMDL and the listing of stream segments on the state 303(d) list and affords the
ability to use the EAP as the route to a watershed permit and eventually watershed-based
trading.

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)

2-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

FRAMEWORK FOR THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLANS

SWWT

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

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

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 Menomonee River watershed. This WRP contains the following:
The characterization of the baseline conditions within the Menomonee River watershed
highlighting a few important planning considerations, including the following:

2-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

o

The watershed contains diverse land uses that range from rural land uses to
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,
especially in upstream areas of the watershed. 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 Menomonee River
watershed.
An implementation strategy that focuses on priority actions that should take place in the
near term to meet long-term water quality goals and provides direction for future actions.
An initial list of policy issues that may influence the implementation schedule and
process. The policy issues should be prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy
Committee as projects are considered for implementation.
An important issue addressed during the development of this WRP was how to best integrate
other ongoing watershed management efforts (e.g., recommendations in the RWQMPU and the
2020 FP, various nonpoint water quality improvements as a result of 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.

2-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The overall implementation strategy of the WRP is presented in Chapter 8. The implementation
strategy incorporates adaptive management to identify and implement actions, monitor
incremental progress toward achieving water quality and habitat improvements, and modify the
actions as necessary. The recommended phasing strategy for implementation of this WRP is as
follows:
Phase 1- Completed and Committed Actions/Projects: The first phase in implementing this
WRP includes identifying relevant actions or projects that have been recently completed and a
recommendation to implement already committed projects and programs.As such, the technical
analysis underpinning this WRP started with the “baseline” WQI water quality model and
“added in” all the committed projects as of January 1, 2008 using the same approach taken for
the WQI (see Appendix 4B for a description of the updates made to the WQI model). This phase
represents recent progress and will continue approximately through the year 2015.
Phase 2 – Implement Identified Foundation Actions and Other Identified High Priority
Actions: The second phase of adaptive implementation includes the implementation of the
foundation actions and the other high priority actions identified in the RWQMPU and by the
SWWT committees during the development of the WRP. This phase also represents progress in
the years 2010 to about 2015.
Phase 3 – Full Implementation of the RWQMPU: The third phase of adaptive
implementation of this WRP consists of full implementation of the RWQMPU
recommendations. Depending on the monitoring results of the first two phases, these actions
could include more widespread implementation of the same or modified actions or they could
include most of the remaining elements contained in the RWQMPU (medium- and low-priority
actions) and the additional actions identified through the development of the WRP. These
actions are discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this WRP. An emphasis would be placed on the
controls that are determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during
Phases 1 and 2. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort.
This phase would represent progress in the years 2016 to about 2020.
It is anticipate that Phase 3 would result in meeting the water quality and habitat improvement
goals presented in the RWQMPU and discussed in Chapter 3 of this WRP. Phase 3 is not
presented further in this WRP because the details of this phase will depend upon the results of
Phase 1 and 2.
Phase 4 – Enhanced Level of Controls: The final fourth phase of adaptive implementation of
this WRP consists of an enhanced level of controls to further improve water quality or habitat
beyond the goals established by the RWQMPU. Depending on the monitoring results of the first
three phases, these actions could include more widespread implementation of the same or
modified actions. An emphasis would be placed on the controls that are determined to be most
successful (technically, socially, and financially) during Phases 1, 2 and 3. The development of
the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase could overlap with Phase 3
and could represent progress in the years 2016 to 2020 or beyond.
Phase 4 is not yet developed nor presented in this chapter because this phase will depend upon
the results of Phases 1, 2 and 3.
Phase 5 – Fully Meet Water Quality Standards: The final phase of implementation would be
the adoption of all controls necessary to fully meet achievable water quality standards, whether

2-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

those are the existing standards, site-specific standards, or future changes in water quality
standards. This phase would occur after 2020.
2.5.2

Detailed Tasks

The tasks listed below served as the technical basis for developing this WRP to meet water
quality standards and protect water resources in the Menomonee River watershed. The tasks are
organized according to the nine elements of the Clean Water Act guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. The nine elements are the
following:
1) Identify causes of impairment and pollutant sources that need to be controlled to achieve
needed load reductions and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. This
information was used to develop conceptual plans for this Menomonee River WRP.
2) Estimate the load reductions expected from management measures.
3) Describe the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load
reductions, including a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be
needed.
4) Estimate the amount of needed technical and financial assistance, the associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan.
5) Develop an information and education component to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage early and continued participation.
6) Develop a schedule for implementing the identified management measures.
7) Describe interim measurable milestones for determining whether the management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
8) Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are
being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water
quality standards.
9) Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time.
The innovative watershed planning effort conducted during the development of this WRP
included the following:
A series of workshops conducted with the SWWT committees, which included
representatives from the WDNR, to obtain their input on the scope of the WRP effort (to
finalize the pollutants to be assessed and to confirm the water quality targets to be used
for pollutants without numeric criteria).
The development of an adaptive management and adaptive implementation approach
that will allow proposed controls to be implemented, monitored, refined, and revisited so
that effective implementation of the WRP will be achieved.
Analysis of management measures consisting of facilities, programs, operational
improvements and policies (FPOPs). The prioritization from the RWQMPU was used as
the basis and was revised, as necessary, based on input from the SWWT committees.
The management measures were prioritized based on their potential to result in the

2-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

greatest improvement to water quality and habitat. The FPOPs identified as high priority
actions were organized by assessment points, which generally correspond to subwatersheds.
The development of an implementation plan that includes guidance regarding the
implementation process, implementation schedule, potential funding sources, identified
policy issues and monitoring.
2.6

Summary

This Menomonee River WRP focuses on nonpoint source controls and the management of
polluted stormwater runoff. This plan builds upon initiatives over the past 30 years that were
directed primarily at controlling point source pollution through the implementation of the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program and 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 Menomonee River watershed restoration
planning effort.

2-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

APPENDIX 2A

2-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

APPENDIX 2B

2-19

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Fecal Coliform

Watershed

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-16

RI-21

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151
Impact

Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Geometric Mean Standard
Not to Exceed Standard

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)

231
1,627
110
187
208

234
1,649
111
185
207

3
23
1
-2
-1

1.2%
1.4%
1.3%
-1.2%
-0.6%

Not to Exceed Standard
Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season)
Mean (Swimming season)
Median (swimming season)
Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season)
Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)
Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)
Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Geometric Mean Standard
Not to Exceed Standard

% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)
% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)

66%
114
966
53
118
109
81%
510
2,860
355
70
170

65%
117
995
53
116
107
79%
477
2,739
355
83
170

-1%
3
29
0
-2
-2
-1%
-33
-121
0
13
0

Not to Exceed Standard
Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season)
Mean (Swimming season)
Median (Swimming season)
Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season)
Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)
Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)

% of time standard is met
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)
% of time standard is met

56%
229
1,500
101
50
99
75%

56%
212
1,451
89
61
98
74%

0%
-17
-49
-12
11
-1
0

Measure

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

2-20

2.7%
3.0%
0.0%
-2.0%
-1.6%
-6.4%
-4.2%
-0.1%
19.1%
-0.2%
-7.5%
-3.3%
-11.9%
22.1%
-1.0%

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Fecal Coliform, continued

Watershed

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151
Impact

731
3,947
616
39
150

-60
-232
-30
6
2

-7.6%
-5.5%
-4.7%
17.2%
1.5%

Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Geometric Mean Standard
Not to Exceed Standard

Counts / 100 ml

Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)

791
4,178
646
33
148

Not to Exceed Standard

% of time standard is met

49%

50%

1%

Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season)
Mean (Swimming season)
Median (swimming season)
Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season)
Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)

Counts / 100 ml

334
1,998
175
23
90

308
1,928
163
27
90

-26
-70
-12
4
0

Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)

% of time standard is met

69%

69%

0%

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

Counts / 100 ml

1,064
6,119
987
200
183

981
5,903
970
207
184

-83
-216
-17
7
1

-7.8%
-3.5%
-1.7%
3.6%
0.8%

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)

% of time standard is met

Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)

62%
455
3,129
191
135

63%
415
3,064
172
138

0%
-40
-65
-19
3

-8.8%
-2.1%
-9.8%
2.4%

Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)

103

104

1

0.8%

% of time standard is met

81%

81%

0%

Longterm Geometric Mean
Mean
Median
Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed

Counts / 100 ml

1,033
6,148
962
203

955
5,945
946
209

-78
-204
-16
6

-7.6%
-3.3%
-1.7%
3.2%

Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month

Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)

184

185

0

0.1%

Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month

% of time standard is met

63%

63%

0%

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)

Counts / 100 ml

Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)

437
3,133
179
136

399
3,073
162
138

-38
-60
-17
2

-8.6%
-1.9%
-9.6%
1.6%

Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)

104

105

0

0.1%

% of time standard is met

81%

81%

0%

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)

Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml

2-21

-7.7%
-3.5%
-7.0%
18.8%
0.4%

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Watershed

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-16

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

10.7

10.7

0.0

-0.1%

Mean

mg / L

10.5

10.5

0.0

0.0%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

Days met (5 mg/L)

351

351

0

-0.1%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

% of time standard is met

99%

99%

0%

Median

mg / L

11.0

11.0

0.0

0.2%

Mean

mg / L

10.8

10.8

0.0

0.0%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

Days met (5 mg/L)

355

356

0

0.1%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

% of time standard is met

99%

99%

0%

Median

mg / L

10.9

10.9

0.0

-0.1%

Mean

mg / L

10.7

10.7

0.0

0.0%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

Days met (5 mg/L)

353

354

0

0.1%

Dissolved Oxygen Standard

% of time standard is met

99%

99%

0%

Median

mg / L

11.0

11.0

0.0

0.0%

Mean

mg / L

10.9

10.9

0.0

0.0%

Variance standard

Days met (2 mg/L)

365

365

0

0.0%

Variance standard

% of time standard is met

100%

100%

0%

Median

mg / L

10.9

10.9

0.0

0.0%

Mean

mg / L

10.9

10.9

0.0

0.0%

Variance standard

Days met (2 mg/L)

365

365

0

0.0%

Variance standard

% of time standard is met

100%

100%

0%

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

2-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Watershed

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-16

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

6.0

5.8

-0.2

-2.8%

Mean

mg / L

10.1

9.9

-0.3

-2.6%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

360

361

1

0.2%

Median

mg / L

5.8

5.1

-0.7

-11.7%

Mean

mg / L

14.2

12.9

-1.3

-9.1%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

351

353

2

0.6%

Median

mg / L

5.1

4.4

-0.7

-13.6%

Mean

mg / L

12.1

10.9

-1.2

-9.8%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

355

356

1

0.4%

Median

mg / L

5.8

4.9

-0.8

-14.7%

Mean

mg / L

14.3

13.2

-1.1

-8.0%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

350

351

1

0.4%

Median

mg / L

5.5

4.8

-0.7

-12.7%

Mean

mg / L

14.2

13.1

-1.1

-7.5%

TSS Guideline

Days met (100 mg/L)

350

351

1

0.3%

Total Nitrogen (TN)

Watershed

Assessment
Location

Menomonee
River

RI-16

Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

0.97

0.96

-0.01

-0.9%

Mean

mg / L

1.08

1.07

-0.02

-1.4%

Median

mg / L

0.90

0.86

-0.05

-5.1%

Mean

mg / L

0.96

0.91

-0.05

-4.8%

Median

mg / L

0.90

0.85

-0.05

-5.0%

Mean

mg / L

0.94

0.90

-0.05

-5.1%

Median

mg / L

0.99

0.93

-0.06

-6.1%

Mean

mg / L

1.03

0.97

-0.06

-5.5%

Median

mg / L

1.11

1.06

-0.05

-4.6%

Mean

mg / L

1.15

1.10

-0.06

-4.8%

2-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Watershed

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location

RI-16

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Measure

Units

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

0.067

0.066

0.000

-0.7%

Mean

mg / L

0.105

0.105

-0.001

-0.7%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

238

239

0

0.2%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

68%

68%

0%

Median

mg / L

0.065

0.064

-0.002

-2.4%

Mean

mg / L

0.104

0.101

-0.003

-3.2%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

231

235

4

1.8%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

66%

67%

1%

Median

mg / L

0.065

0.063

-0.002

-2.8%

Mean

mg / L

0.102

0.098

-0.003

-3.4%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

238

241

3

1.4%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

68%

69%

1%

Median

mg / L

0.078

0.076

-0.003

-3.2%

Mean

mg / L

0.110

0.107

-0.004

-3.5%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

224

228

5

2.1%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

65%

66%

1%

Median

mg / L

0.107

0.105

-0.003

-2.5%

Mean

mg / L

0.133

0.129

-0.004

-2.9%

TP Planning Guideline

Days TP met (0.1 mg / L)

167

172

5

3.0%

TP Planning Guideline

% of time standard is met

50%

51%

1%

2-24

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Copper

Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River

Assessment
Location
RI-16

RI-21

Menomonee
River

RI-22

Menomonee
River

RI-09

Menomonee
River

RI-10

Measure

Units

Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)

Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Median

mg / L

0.0017

0.0016

0.0000

-2.1%

Mean

mg / L

0.0043

0.0043

-0.0001

-1.2%

Median

mg / L

0.0020

0.0019

-0.0001

-7.4%

Mean

mg / L

0.0052

0.0048

-0.0003

-6.6%

Median

mg / L

0.0022

0.0020

-0.0002

-8.9%

Mean

mg / L

0.0052

0.0048

-0.0004

-7.2%

Median

mg / L

0.0025

0.0022

-0.0002

-10.0%

Mean

mg / L

0.0054

0.0050

-0.0004

-6.9%

Median

mg / L

0.0024

0.0022

-0.0002

-9.4%

Mean

mg / L

0.0052

0.0049

-0.0004

-6.8%

2-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

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

3-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

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
(WATs). 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

Menomonee River

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

3-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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 and 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

Menomonee River

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

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watershed Action Team meetings to share results and
discuss ideas related to habitat issues within each watershed and potential mitigation strategies
and remedial actions. This subcommittee met informally during the period May 2009 through
December 2009.
3.2.3 Watershed Action Teams
The WATs advise the SWWT ESC on important watershed-specific issues pertaining to its
activities and implement projects either as a body or by enabling its member organizations. In
fulfilling its roles, the WATs perform the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all watershed discussions.
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives.
3) Work with SEWRPC to develop this WRP.
4) Identify issues and prepare a priority list of watershed-specific projects and programs to
be supported by the SWWT, based on this WRP. Recommend this list to the ESC for
their review and approval.
5) Identify and make recommendations on watershed-specific issues.
6) Undertake projects or advise on member projects that have been awarded by the ESC.
7) Record WAT meeting notes and report out to the ESC.
The following co-chairs were elected to lead the Menomonee WAT:
Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Gail Epping Overholt, University of Wisconsin Extension
The membership list is included in Appendix 3B.
Joint meeting dates with the Kinnickinnic River WAT: November 11, 2008; December 8, 2008;
February 2, 2009; and May 5, 2009. Separate meeting dates: August 5, 2009; September 22,
2009; October 21, 2009; November 17, 2009; and March 17, 2010.
3.2.4 Policy Committee
The Policy Committee advises the SWWT ESC on important public policy and legal issues
pertaining to its activities. The Policy Committee performs the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all public policy and legal
discussions
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives
3) Identify and make recommendations on public policy and legal issues
4) Record Policy Committee meeting notes and report to the ESC
The Policy Committee members are listed below.
Peter McAvoy, Chair - South Sixteen Community Health Center
Dan Collins, Elutions
3-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

James Fratrick, WDNR
Shawn Graff, Ozaukee Washington Land Trust
Susan Greenfield, Root-Pike Watershed Initiative Network
Henry Hamilton III, NAACP - Milwaukee Branch
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

Menomonee River

The focus of the SWWT is on implementing these goals; however, the SWWT recognizes that its
efforts must build on the goals, objectives, and recommendations of 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 Menomonee River watershed and its objective categories paired to an extensive list of
recommendations and/or implementation strategies. Programs and projects supported by the
SWWT will be evaluated relative to their potential to make progress toward these measurable
goals.
Measurable Water Quality Improvement Goals
In general, the degree of improvement in water quality resulting from implementation of the
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 Menomonee WAT to include aesthetic improvement with
habitat as a goal, it is recognized that aesthetic improvement does not always translate to
ecologically-based (habitat) improvement. The use of aesthetics as a goal does present a
challenge in some cases because criteria for aesthetic improvement vary among people and over
time. For example, a concrete-lined channel with managed turf in the riparian area adjacent to
accessible parking may be perceived as aesthetically-ideal to some, but as sterile to others.
Alternatively, a naturalized stream that courses through a wide, wooded riparian corridor has
improved ecological function, but may present challenges in terms of litter control, maintenance
and law enforcement. This WRP acknowledges that aesthetic improvement does not always
relate directly to water quality or habitat improvement, but in many cases they are all linked. In
addition, aesthetic improvement is strongly related to quality of life issues and environmental
justice issues. For the purpose of this WRP, aesthetic improvement impacts amenity value,
personal relationships to the resource, and community connections necessary to provide the
financial resources necessary to address habitat and water quality concerns.
The preceding goals that are to be achieved by 2020 can be reviewed in the Plan Summary of the
RWQMPU, which details the goals for the entire RWQMPU.2
Specific to the Menomonee River watershed, the RWQMPU goals are the following:
1) Land Use Changes
a. Converting 2.3 square miles of marginal cropland to prairie or wetland conditions

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

Menomonee River

b. Establishing or expanding riparian buffers along approximately 69 miles of
stream bank
2) Habitat/Aesthetics Improvements
a. Renovating and rehabilitating concrete channels where concrete lining removal
can be accomplished without creating flood or erosion hazards
b. Preparing abandonment and associated riverine restoration plans for dams,
specifically addressing sedimentation issues
c. Limiting culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments and
designing such necessary features to allow the passage of aquatic organisms
d. Developing restoration and remediation programs for riverine and impoundment
sites with contaminated sediments
e. Extending the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern to include reaches of the Little
Menomonee River and additional reaches of the Menomonee River
f. 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
3) 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 pollutant load reductions are estimated for the Menomonee River watershed:
a) Total Phosphorus

32% (17,231 pound reduction)

b) Total Suspended Solids (TSS):

24% (4.2 million pound reduction)

c) Fecal Coliform Bacteria:

42% (6,900 trillion cell reduction)

d) Total Nitrogen:

26% (104,000 pound reduction)

e) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): 17% (224,000 pound reduction)
f) Copper:

15% (281 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.
It is important to note that achieving these goals will not meet water quality standards at every
location in the watershed, 365 days per year. As explained in Chapter 11 of the RWQMPU
3-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

(Planning Report No. 50), achieving the goals for BOD, phosphorus and TSS would generally
result in a high level of compliance (defined as compliance 85% of the time or greater) with the
water quality standards or planning standards developed under the RWQMPU. Achieving the
fecal coliform load reduction goal would generally result in a high level of compliance with the
standards during the summer months, but a low degree of compliance is expected when looking
at data for the full year. Based on the model results, in order to meet all of the fecal coliform
standards 100% of the time in all areas of the watershed, over 90% of the total load would need
to be reduced.
Note, for the RWQMPU, the variance standards were used for DO and fecal coliform where
applicable. For the WRP analysis, the SWWT committees decided to look at compliance
assuming the variance standards did not apply. Therefore, the results shown in Chapter 6 of the
WRP do not show as much of an increase as the results of the RWQMPU for fecal coliform and
DO. However, reaching the goals listed above is one of the first steps in improving water quality
and habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive
watershed management approach is implemented.
To get a sense of what achieving the water quality standards means, the RWQMPU links the
water quality objectives to the water use objectives. In general, the Menomonee River is
classified as a warm water fishery. Therefore, meeting the water quality standards should allow
the river to sustain fish such as walleye and bass. However, there are other factors, such as
habitat, that need to be considered when predicting the type of aquatic life that could potentially
be sustained.
3.3.1 Watershed Action Team Visioning Session
The Menomonee River WAT participated in a visioning session in December 2008. The purpose
of this session was not to determine specific goals or objectives, but to determine the parameters
on which the WRP should focus. Project team staff asked the following three questions to help
discover values-based water resource expectations of the members:
How do you want the Menomonee River to look?
What activities do (or would) you like to do in the Menomonee River?
On behalf of aquatic and plant life, what do you think the Menomonee River needs?
While some respondents directly answered the questions and others responded more generally, it
was 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
o Underwood Creek, Honey Creek (downstream of 84th Street and upstream at
McCarty Park) and Menomonee River should have no concrete and should be

3-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

naturalized (See the Underwood Creek Baseline Water Quality Report for the
locations of drop structures and concrete-lined channels)3
o Concrete lining along the Menomonee River channel in the vicinity of Miller Park is
an impediment for fish passage
Streams should be daylighted (remove streams from enclosed conduit); however,
consider safety and unintended consequences (e.g., flooding)
Reintroduce meanders
In-stream conditions:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Free of trash
Increase pools and riffles
Decrease flashiness and thermal discharges
No fish advisories
Reduce unnatural solids in streambed and improve clarity of water
Less salt
Seawalls/fish condos – look at the lower portion of the Menomonee River to create
habitat
Plant wild rice in the Burnham Canal (Milwaukee Riverkeeper is undertaking a pilot
project)
Restore original meanders upstream of 115th Street
No fecal coliforms
Increase levels of DO
Decrease nutrient loads
Remove invasive species
Clean up Superfund sites such as Little Menomonee River
Riparian areas:
Keep vegetation wild, but maintained
Balance natural vegetation with recreational use needs
Provide increased riparian areas (i.e., buffers), 75’ minimum
Remove all homes and businesses from the floodplain
Construct and restore wetlands
3

MMSD, Underwood Creek Baseline Water Quality Report (2003-2005), http://v3.mmsd.com/AssetsClient/
Documents/08-266%20UC%20web.pdf (October 2008)

3-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Reduce or eliminate nutrient inputs from manure spreading in rural areas
Improve public access to river (indirect improvement through increased recreational use,
awareness of, and connection to the river)
Improve diversity of aquatic life
In-stream and riparian areas:
For projects, start at the headwaters and work progressively downstream
More aquatic life diversity, plants and animals that would use the waters in a safe manner
Desired uses:
Swim
25th Street and downstream on the Menomonee River: riverwalk with some public access
Access points for fishing at Petit Point, 12th Street and Bruce Street
Kayaking/canoeing, but evaluate woody debris within streams
Overarching and vision:
Consider cost-benefits
Citizen involvement and education
o Lawn care education, regulations
o Positive association/identity with water; ways to generate adoration for water
resource assets
o Work with the river asset – create an identity for the river with the communities
Green infrastructure focus
Sustainable solutions
More flow monitoring to match to needs
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 and consider the following parameters:
3-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chloride (harmful to aquatic life)
TSS
Sediment
DO/BOD
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 Menomonee 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
3-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

Menomonee River

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

3-15

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]

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

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

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

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

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 - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
M.]

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

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

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

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 - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]

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

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

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

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 - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

Affiliation

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

Affiliation
Caledonia Conservancy
HNTB Corporation
HNTB Corporation
Whyte, Hirschboeck, Dudek S.C.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
Uihlein/Wilson Architects
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
HNTB Corporation
Siepmann Realty Corporation
University of Wisconsin-Extension
US Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Brookfield
City of Muskego
Gateway Technical College
RA Smith & Associates
Milwaukee County Parks
City of Greenfield
Representative 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 - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

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

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

Appendix 3A

INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 3B

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

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

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

W DNR

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

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

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP

MO/DY/YR

[FILE NMNG

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

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

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

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

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP

.]

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

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

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

City of Wauwatosa
City of Milwaukee
Johnson Foundation

Appendix 3B

PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP

L

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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 Menomonee River watershed. It includes descriptive information pertaining to
the historical trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and
ecological integrity, bank stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery
resources. This chapter represents a refinement of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning 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
Menomonee River watershed. In contrast to the habitat-based discussion, the water quality and
pollutant loading data and modeling results are presented for each assessment point area.
As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), the RWQMPU was the
starting point and set the framework for this plan – it is not intended to be the final level of
restoration for the watershed. The goals of the RWQMPU, and consequently the WRP, were not
set to meet water quality standards in all locations of the watershed 365 days per year.
Therefore, the water quality results shown in this chapter, which are based on the recommended
plan from the RWQMPU, do not all meet water quality standards. However, achieving the goals
will significantly reduce the annual pollutant loads and concentrations in the streams and improve habitat
in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive watershed

management approach is implemented that will continue to improve water quality.
4.2

Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Menomonee 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 Menomonee River watershed and to fit within the context of
this WRP. Memorandum Report 194 is included in Appendix 4A.
Background
Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into stream systems by one of two pathways: either
directly flowing overland as surface water runoff into streams or infiltrating into the soil surface
and eventually flowing underground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally
flow only during the wet season or large rainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called
perennial streams and are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry periods. The surface
water drainage system contains approximately 142 miles of perennial and ephemeral streams
within the Menomonee River watershed (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts the assessment
point areas, identified as MN-1 thru MN-19. As noted above, some of the habitat-based
characteristics and the water quality and pollutant loading discussions utilize assessment point
areas to focus the discussion. Between the discussion of habitat and water quality/pollutant
loading, note that there are minor differences in aerial coverage of several of the assessment
4-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

point areas. Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Menomonee 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 also
increases.

4-2

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

FIGURE 4-1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHED
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

To better understand the Menomonee River watershed and the factors that shape its stream
conditions, it is important to understand the effects of both spatial and temporal scales.
Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance while
river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins are least susceptible. However, large
disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. Similarly, on a temporal
scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short term. However,
if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.1 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream
channelization and the construction of concrete-linings, have resulted in longer term impacts
throughout the Menomonee River watershed.
Historical conditions
Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary area including the Menomonee River has been
substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant
wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.2 This
conversion allowed for the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area
that currently exists, but this conversion has lead to significant environmental degradation in
water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.3 Further comparison of the earliest known survey
of the entire Menomonee River system, completed in 1836, to the present channel conditions in
2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization, channel lining and diversion of stream
channels over this time period.
Straightening meandering stream channels or “channelization” was once a widely used and
accepted technique in agricultural management. The National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) cost-shared such activities up to the early
1970s within southeastern Wisconsin. The objectives of channelization were to reduce flooding,
facilitate drainage of low-lying areas, and allow more efficient farming within rectangular fields.
Channelization can lead to increased water temperature due to the loss of riparian vegetation. It
can also alter in-stream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and
deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating
features, generally lead to a diminished suitability of in-stream and riparian habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Flood minimization measures also involved the placement of concrete (both as a flow channel
enhancement and as flow controls as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed channel)
and removal of vegetation from channels to promote rate of flow. Historically, these measures
were implemented without consideration of habitat impacts. Concrete-lined stream segments are
particularly damaging, due to the creation of conditions that fragment and limit linear and lateral
connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and ecosystem; limit or prevent fish and
wildlife movement; increase water temperature; destroy fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat;
limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing and aesthetics; and may
1

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

4-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo provides additional
information on the watercourse and contains detailed mapping of the Menomonee River
watershed.
Land use, imperviousness, and hydrology
The urban land use within the Menomonee River watershed is expected to increase between the
present and 2035. While such urbanization in the absence of planning can create negative
impacts on streams, urbanization itself is not the main factor driving the degradation of some
reaches of the Menomonee River watershed. In general, streams can survive and flourish in
urban settings. However, the main factors leading to the degradation of urban waterbodies are
the following:
Creation of large areas of connected impervious surfaces
Lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of
runoff
Proximity of development to waterbodies
Loss of natural areas
Inadequate construction erosion controls.
These factors increase the potential for the occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity
effects associated with urbanization. Industrial and commercial land uses have significantly
more impervious area than residential land uses. Furthermore, smaller residential lots create
more impervious surfaces than larger residential lots. TABLE 4-1 lists the approximate amount
of impervious surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial, and governmental and
institutional development.

4-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee 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
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

In addition, because impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow is
available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall,
baseflow levels are often reduced in urban streams.5 This has been observed to occur in the
Menomonee River watershed, which limits recreational opportunities such as canoeing. In
addition to water quantity and stream hydrology, stormwater runoff traveling over a parking lot
or driveway will pick up more heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants
than runoff traveling over surfaces that allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to
infiltrate. This directly affects water quality and pollutant loading within the Menomonee River
watershed, discussed on page 26.
Biological
Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and
hydrological variables. Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species
abundance and distributions within aquatic systems; however, such interactions are beyond the
scope of this report and are not considered further in this document. Abiotic factors such as
stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities
(fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat
quality. For example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high
quality habitat. It is important to note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within
a watershed as well as to land use directly adjacent to the stream bank. Consequently, watershed
size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffer width are critical elements
necessary in defining habitat quality.
4.3

Habitat Assessment within the Menomonee River Watershed

This section highlights habitat information for key assessment point areas within the Menomonee
River watershed based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data
obtained from years 2000 through 2009. This assessment was based upon fish,
macroinvertebrate, and habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by multiple agencies.
These samples were collected for a variety of purposes and programs. However, it is important to
note that the collection methods used were similar and comparable for purposes of this report.
Physical and riparian
The Menomonee River system is comprised of about 6% concrete-lining and 2% enclosed
channel. The concrete lining is predominantly located within the Honey Creek (MN-16) and
Underwood Creek (MN-14) assessment point areas. With several exceptions, the majority of the
Menomonee River stream system is in open channel and largely stable. Lilly Creek is very
unstable and comprised of more than 70% eroded streambanks, whereas the streams within other
Menomonee River watershed assessment point areas are generally less than 20% eroded.
The Menomonee River and its tributaries generally enjoy a high amount of protection from
riparian buffers that exceed 75 feet in width on more than half of its stream miles. The following
assessment point areas are exceptions:
5

Simmons, D., and R. Reynolds, “Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long Island,
NY,” Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982.

4-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Lilly Creek (MN-7)
Little Menomonee Creek (MN-10)
Dousman Ditch (MN-13A)
Underwood Creek (MN-14)
Honey Creek (MN-16)
Lower Menomonee River mainstem (MN-18, 19)
In these areas, only a third of the riparian buffers exceed 75 feet in width. These riparian areas
are typically associated with park systems and are often associated with high quality vegetation
communities (See Map 9 in Appendix 4A). There are 74 significant vegetation communities
distributed throughout the Menomonee River watershed and are components of primary
environmental corridors (PEC), natural areas, and critical species habitat areas as summarized in
the RWQMPU. These vegetation communities range in quality from poor to excellent. In
general, the highest quality communities are associated with the largest stands or areas. While
the majority of sites within the Menomonee River watershed are in the good to excellent range, it
is important to note that all of these vegetation communities provide necessary habitat for a
variety of wildlife. 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 communities including detailed mapping of these features within the Menomonee River
watershed. For more information on natural areas within the Menomonee River watershed, see
the following reports:
A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan
for Southeastern Wisconsin6
A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District7
A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County8
Conservation Plan Technical Report9
Stream widths in the Menomonee River were observed to range from about 20-30 feet in width
in the headwaters to about 70-100 feet in width in the downstream reaches. The Menomonee
River mainstem (assessment point areas MN-2, MN-5, MN-9, MN-12, MN-15, MN-17, and
MN-18 / MN-19) is generally dominated by gravel and sand substrates. The Little Menomonee
River (MN-11) ranges from about 20-30 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates.
Honey Creek (MN-16) and Underwood Creek (MN-13 and MN-14) both range from about 10 to
40 feet in width and are dominated by gravel substrates. Butler Ditch (MN-8) ranges from about
6

SEWRPC, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin, Planning Report No. 42 (September 1997)
7
SEWRPC, A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Memorandum Report
No. 152 (December 2002)
8
SEWRPC, A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County, Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132
(November 1991)
9
MMSD, Conservation Plan Technical Report (October 2001)

4-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

10-25 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates in the headwaters and gravel substrates
in the lower reaches.
As summarized within RWQMPU, there are a total of 153 point sources identified within the
Menomonee River watershed that include noncontact cooling water permits, individual permits,
combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls, and separate sewer overflow (SSO) outfalls. As
shown in TABLE 4-2, these are mostly located within the lower areas of the Menomonee River
watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls found within the Menomonee River
watershed. Stormwater outfalls are relatively evenly distributed throughout the watershed.
The physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to
streambed and/or banks, especially if they are constructed at poor angles. These outfalls can be
retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among others. It is
also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration
practices as well as protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. In addition to outfall
design and construction, the location of the outfall is an important consideration. An outfall that
discharges directly to a waterbody conveys stormwater past the riparian buffer. These conditions
preclude any opportunity for the riparian buffer to filter or treat stormwater. Ideally, outfalls
would discharge directly into the riparian buffer area, which would allow some infiltration and
filtration of the stormwater within the buffer area. Outfall pipes can be retrofit or daylighted to
shift the outfall discharge point to the riparian buffer; note that the riparian buffer may need to be
modified in the new discharge area to prevent erosion. See Figure 4-3 for examples of infiltration
and streambank protection projects along Underwood Creek. Also, see Appendix 4A for
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 Menomonee River watershed.

4-10

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

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

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

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

Outfall located
within riparian buffer
Rock-lined area downstream
of outfall to increase infltration
and reduce erosion

Vegetated area to increase
infiltration

Erosion control fabric

Re-connected floodplain/
Expanded riparian buffer

Outfall 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
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Instream biological conditions
The most recent biological assessment of the Menomonee River watershed identified a strong
relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.10 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.11
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 Menomonee River contains about 20% imperviousness based upon
the amount of urban land development. In summary, the hydrology within the Menomonee
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 within the Menomonee River watershed 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 in order to put the results of the
Menomonee 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 Underwood Creek (prior
to restoration) and Honey Creek, both within the Menomonee River watershed. 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 Menomonee 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

10

J.C. Thomas , M.A. Lutz, and others, “Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area,” February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084 (2007)
11
Note that the USEPA indicates that IBI is used in warm freshwater streams to evaluate fish species richness and
composition, number and abundance of indicator species, trophic organization and function, reproductive behavior,
fish abundance, and condition of individual fish.

4-14

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

FIGURE 4-4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOTA
AND URBANIZATION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.

Source: SEWRPC, Memorandum Report No. 194.

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

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

T$%/(

AGGREGATED BIOASSESSMENT
RESULTS
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Urban land uses tend to increase impervious surfaces, which affect stream hydrology and impact
water quality. Periodic stormwater pollutant loads result in significant pollutant loading to area
waterbodies. Most of the water quality impacts are associated with the „first flush‟ of rainfall or
snowmelt events (wet weather event). The first flush carries most of the pollutants that have
accumulated on impervious surfaces since the preceding wet weather event. Following the first
flush, subsequent runoff is referred to as „extended runoff‟; this runoff tends to transport less
pollution. In general, the first flush occurs during the first 30 minutes of a wet weather event and
the rest of the wet weather event produces extended runoff. Recent analyses compared the
concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) among the following
sources:
First flush stormwater
CSO
SSO
Extended runoff
The analysis included water quality data that was gathered from 1990 to 2003, so it included
both pre-tunnel and post-tunnel data. The analysis of TP within first flush stormwater indicates
that TP concentrations are comparable to those found in CSOs, but tend to present in lower
concentrations relative to SSOs. The concentration of TP within extended runoff is generally
lower than those within the CSO and the first flush. The analysis of TSS within first flush
stormwater indicates that TSS concentrations are generally higher than TSS concentrations found
in CSOs, SSOs, and extended runoff. These analyses indicate that nonpoint source pollution
from the first flush of wet weather events contribute to TP and TSS loads and impact water
quality.
Chlorides from deicing activities also affect water quality. Similarly to TP and TSS, chlorides
are transported to area waterbodies during the first flush of wet weather events. Chloride
concentrations in the Menomonee River (at 70th Street) are correlated with winter and wet
weather events. As expected, the measured chloride concentrations tend to be highest during the
winter months when salt is applied to roadways within the Menomonee River watershed.
With respect to item 3 on page 4-15 (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and
concrete linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) that was
recently restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). This project is located in
Underwood Creek and it serves as a good example of the potential habitat improvement that can
be realized by concrete removal and floodplain restoration.

4-18

Straight channel

Concrete lining

Re-connected
floodplain
Erosion control
fabric

Natural, meandering
channel

Stabilized bank
Gravel Substrate

Large boulders
provide resting
areas and slope
stability

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

FIGURE 4-6
CONCRETE REMOVAL / FLOODPLAIN
RESTORATION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Channel obstructions and fragmentation
There are more than 300 potential channel obstructions within 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, 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.12 It is unknown how many road or railway crossings are limiting fish passage in
the Menomonee River. However, the section of concrete lining near Miller Park (river mile 3.62
to 4.24) and the Menomonee Falls Dam (river mile 21.9) are two of the most significant fish
passage obstructions on the Menomonee River. The Menomonee Falls Dam is a complete
barrier to upstream fish passage. This particular area also contains bedrock outcrops resulting in
natural falls, which is likely where Menomonee Falls got its name. Historically, these bedrock
outcrops have probably greatly limited fish passage upstream, so the upper reach of the
Menomonee River has likely always been rather isolated from downstream areas, even before the
construction of the dam. Downstream along the mainstem between USH 41and I-94,
approximately 1,000 feet of concrete lining limits fish passage due to a combination of water
velocity and the lack of fish resting places.
As summarized by SEWRPC‟s RWQMPU, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish
species throughout the Menomonee 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). Historical fish
assemblages within the lowest reach of the Menomonee River (4.24 miles) contained the fewest
number of species compared to the upstream areas that were comprised of more than two times
as many fish species. However, this lower section of the Menomonee River was only recently
re-connected 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 and major habitat
improvements near the dam site that were completed in 1996 on the Milwaukee River have 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 stocking programs, have also contributed to the highest number of
species found (a total of 42 total species) within the Menomonee River in over 100 years of
fishery surveys. Comparison of current fish assemblages among reaches within the Menomonee
River shows that the middle reach (River Mile 4.24-29.1) and upper reach (upstream River Mile
29.1) contained 35 and 24 total fish species, respectively. Although this is not the only potential
factor affecting fish species diversity, it does show that the greater the separation from Lake
Michigan, the less diverse are the fish assemblages.
Existing water quality monitoring information
The Menomonee River watershed has a total of 34 surface water monitoring stations. The
majority of the water quality data are being collected by the MMSD, USGS, WDNR, and
volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeeper‟s Citizen Based Monitoring program. The
MMSD continues to sample bi-monthly physical and chemical sampling and analysis at 11
12

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

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

mainstem and 14 tributary sites on the Menomonee River including inorganic, organic,
bacteriological, and instantaneous water quality measurements. The MMSD also contributes
funds for the operation of flow gaging stations by the USGS on the Menomonee River and some
of their associated tributaries.

4-21

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

TABLE 4-4
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The MMSD with USGS have also established six real-time water quality monitoring station
throughout the Menomonee River watershed. Using remote sensor technology, the MMSD and
USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and estimating other real-time
concentrations of selected water quality constituents. Real-time sensors at each location are
measuring specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity along with
stream flow and stage. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms that
transmit data in parallel to the MMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on
a real-time basis allows for water resources management decisions and provides information for
citizens to see.
4.4

Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Menomonee River Watershed

For each assessment point, an “assessment point area” has been developed as a part of the
modeling process. These assessment point areas are the land areas that the water quality model
uses to calculate the delivered pollutant loads. Each assessment point 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.
For each assessment point area, the following is presented:
A map of the assessment point area showing the area and land use in the area
Land use in the assessment point area
Civil divisions (municipalities) that are in the assessment point area
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality – with “Baseline” defined as:
o The simulated water quality resulting from the model that has been validated
considering actual water quality data through calendar year 2007
o Land use as of 2000
o Land use pollutant loading rates that were initially based on the source loading
and management model (SLAMM) and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)
models with some adjustments made to calibrate the water quality model.
To support the development of this watershed restoration plans (WRP), the water quality models
were updated to run through December 2007. The purpose of the update was to account for
known changes in the watersheds and to ensure the models still adequately represent „Baseline‟
conditions. The updated modeling results for the Menomonee River watershed were found to
accurately simulate observed flow and water quality conditions. The Water Quality Model
Refinement memo is included in Appendix 4B.
Detailed “Fact Sheets” are located in Appendix 4C. The fact sheets use data, maps, figures, and
tables to present a comprehensive picture of the Baseline conditions within each assessment
point area in the Menomonee River watershed.
The pollutant loading is presented by Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources (industrial discharges,
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows SSOs)). The loading for
nonpoint sources is further refined to show the delivered loads by land use (both in loads and in
percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed in units per acre per
year).
4-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality – with “Year 2020” defined as the water
quality resulting from the model assuming the following:
o

Growth in the assessment point areas as projected in the SEWRPC RWQMPU for
Year 2020.

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 show the delivered loads by land use (both in loads and in
percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed in
units per acre per year).

While the chapter presents data for each of the assessment point areas individually, it may be
useful to first provide a comparison between all assessment point areas within the Menomonee
River Watershed. TABLE 4-5 offers a summation of loads derived from modeled nonpoint and
point sources. The nonpoint and point loads represent the Baseline modeled water quality in
units per year. In addition, the ranked loads for the Menomonee River watershed assessment
point areas and graphs that present the unit loads per acre for the assessment point areas are
presented in Appendix 4D. The data and analysis included in these appendices can serve as tools
during the implementation of actions to address focus areas in the Menomonee River watershed.

4-24

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-5
TOTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT POINT AREA LOADS
1

TP

pounds

Baseline Nonpoint
2
3
TSS
BOD
tons

pounds

4

FC

TP

billion counts

pounds

Baseline Point
TSS
BOD
tons

pounds

FC

TP

billion counts

pounds

Baseline Total
TSS
BOD
tons

pounds

FC
billion counts

MN-1
MN-2
MN-3
MN-4
MN-5
MN-6
MN-7
MN-8
MN-9
MN-10
MN-11
MN-12
MN-13
MN-14
MN-15
MN-16
MN-17

268
722
600
681
1,348
1,226
1,295
1,547
2,649
430
4,135
425
2,259
4,357
3,289
3,921
668

72.51
159.12
166.1
155.84
299.95
503.46
359.86
348.6
794.41
132.24
1,206.69
162.1
458.19
1,080.77
906.89
938.64
153.47

18,311
40,380
31,849
30,953
56,361
45,516
46,638
45,937
96,487
16,862
159,035
17,753
66,400
137,569
108,283
120,123
20,254

17,124
80,777
77,793
94,701
243,600
411,666
200,552
224,212
775,299
150,343
2,203,091
159,102
1,102,226
2,353,537
1,735,461
2,342,744
421,757

0
988
0
0
1
161
0
6
169
0
356
90
2
42
28
205
1,795

0
1.6
0
0
0.04
0.14
0
0.16
0.17
0
1.28
0.09
0.05
0.42
0.69
0.64
53.32

0
6,760
0
0
20
450
0
78
164
0
3,100
570
27
380
1,262
1,082
20,758

0
0
0
0
1,551
0
0
6,070
3,101
0
517
0
2,068
14,266
6,586
9,010
1,486,392

268
1,710
600
681
1,350
1,387
1,295
1,553
2,818
430
4,491
516
2,261
4,399
3,317
4,126
2,463

72.51
160.72
166.1
155.84
299.99
503.6
359.86
348.76
794.58
132.24
1,207.97
162.19
458.24
1,081.19
907.58
939.28
206.79

18,311
47,140
31,849
30,953
56,381
45,966
46,638
46,015
96,651
16,862
162,135
18,323
66,427
137,949
109,545
121,205
41,012

17,124
80,777
77,793
94,701
245,151
411,666
200,552
230,282
778,400
150,343
2,203,608
159,102
1,104,294
2,367,803
1,742,047
2,351,754
1,908,149

MN-18

3,295

945.39

110,523

1,910,966

16,170

79.05

148,801

838,648

19,465

1,024.44

259,324

2,749,614

Notes:
1
TP = Total phosphorus
2
TSS = Total suspended solids
3
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
4
FC = Fecal coliform

4-25

Watershed Restoration Plan
4.5

Menomonee River

Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds)

The Menomonee River contains 18 assessment points and corresponding assessment point areas.
The assessment point areas are presented on Figure 4-7.
4.5.1 North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1)
The North Branch Menomonee River is located in the far northern extent of the Menomonee
River watershed and predominantly within the village of Germantown. The river begins about
¼ mile west of County Y, between Bonniwell and West Rockfield Roads. It flows northeasterly
across county trunk highway (CTH) Y, state trunk highway (STH) 145 and then crosses Maple
Road approximately ½ mile north of Rockfield Elementary School. From this point, the river
changes direction and flows southeasterly through Faber-Pribyl Woods to cross the Wisconsin
Central Limited (WCL) / Canadian National (CN) rail line and CTH G about 1/8 mile north of
Rockfield Road. From CTH G, the river continues to flow southeasterly and approximately
follows the WSL/CN rail line. The end of North Branch Menomonee River assessment point
area is located upstream of the confluence with the Menomonee River, approximately ½ mile
north of Fireman‟s Park in the village of Germantown (Figure 4-8). A tributary flows through
Hoelz Swamp.
Overall, the North Branch Menomonee River flows for about 1.5 miles and the area encompasses
2.7 square miles. The land use within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point
area is predominantly agriculture (68%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses
make up nearly 22% of the total land use within the area. This includes the Faber-Pribyl Woods
natural area, which is located in the center of the assessment point area and the Hoelz Swamp,
located on the downstream end of the assessment point area. This downstream point and the
Hoelz Swamp are located within a large environmental corridor that is located north of Freistadt
Road and east of CTH G. The riparian corridor widths vary from greater than 75 feet to less than
25 feet. In a few cases, the narrower riparian widths can be attributed to farming right up to the
edge of the river. The North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain
any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
The minimal development in the assessment point area is primarily distributed north of
Rockfield Road. Low-density residential (defined in following table) along with transportation,
manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 10% of the land
use. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately
2% of the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area is impervious. More
information pertaining to land use and the effects of imperviousness on water quality and flows
are available in the RWQMPU. TABLE 4-6 presents the land uses within the North Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area.

4-26

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-6

LAND USE IN THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

1.8

67.76%

0.2

5.69%

0.0

0.00%

Commercial

0.0

0.06%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

0.00%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.6

21.63%

Transportation

0.1

4.49%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.0

0.37%

Total

2.7

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.

4-27

45
t
u

MN-1   

43

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M EE Q
QU
UO
ON
N

MN-1

41
t
u

MN-2

!

MN-3

!!

MN-3
45
t
u

MN-10

MN-2

MN-10

MN-6

!

MN-5

!

MN-4
MN-4

MN-5

!

MN-11   

43

MN-6

!

MN-9

45
t
u
41
t
u

MN-7

!
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
G LL EE N
D AA LL EE
ND

MN-7

45
t
u

MN-12

!!

MN-8

MN-9   

43

MN-11

!
!

MN-12

MN-8

MN-15
41
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
BB R
RO
OO
O KK FF II EE LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M II LL W
W AA U
U KK EE EE
45
t
u

MN-13

MN-14
MN-13

!   

94

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U

!   

43

MN-15
MN-17

MN-14
MN-16

!
! !MN-17

18
t
u

18
t
u

41
t
u   

18
t
u

94

MN-18   

94

W
W AA U
U KK EE SS H
H AA

! MN-18   

18
t
u

894

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
W EE SS TT AA LL LL II SS

41
t
u

MN-16

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
N EE W
W BB EE R
R LL II N
N

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
GR
R EE EE N
N FF II EE LL D
D   

94   

894   

43

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Assessment Point Basins
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions

³

0 2,3754,750
Feet

Figure 4-7
MN Watershed
9,500

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Pioneer Road

!

MN-1
!
!

Mequon Road

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies

Land Use

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Commercial

0

³

650 1,300
Feet

Figure 4-8
MN-1 Land Use
2,600

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of two municipalities within Washington County are located within the North Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area. The municipalities are the town of Germantown and
the village of Germantown. Nearly 88% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the village
of Germantown. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 12%. The extent of the civil
divisions within the assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-7.
TABLE 4-7
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

Town of Germantown

0.3

12.33%

Village of Germantown

2.4

87.67%

Total

2.7

100.00%

Civil Division

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO), TP, fecal coliform (FC) and
TSS in this assessment point area; however, the parameters of focus in the North Branch
Menomonee River are FC and DO. Within this assessment point area, the largest contributors to
Baseline loads are commercial (52%) and residential (24%) land uses. It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water
quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably
characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of
“unknown sources” in this assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. The
data suggest that FC exceedances are a function of nonpoint source loading, as higher FC
concentrations tend to be coincident with higher flows. See Figure 4-9, Figure 4-10, and Figure
4-11. Note: the black line on Figure 4-9 represents the cumulative number of days at various
concentrations throughout the year.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate
for the annual measure and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see
habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The
concentrations of DO tend to decline during the summer months. However, they decline more
than would be expected. This could be due to inputs of organic material and biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) from the assessment point area‟s abundant wetlands.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed.
Total phosphorus concentrations were assessed as good and TSS was assessed as very good. The
relationship between TP and TSS suggests that TP is probably associated with suspended

4-30

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

sediment; the concentrations of both parameters appear to be linked to nonpoint source loads.
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-8. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the
table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, for some
areas, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed
assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO within the assessment point area. TABLE 4-9
presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-10 presents the Baseline percentage
breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-11 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per
acre basis.

4-31

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ North Branch Menomonee River (RI 6)
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

MN-1 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-10

MN-1 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

North Branch Menomonee River – Reach 006
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 4-11

MN-1 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-8

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Assessment
Point
MN-1
North Branch
Menomonee River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

701

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

81

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

116

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

287

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

672

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

89

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

90

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

147

Mean (mg/l)

9.6

Median (mg/l)

9.5

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

90

Mean (mg/l)

0.047

Median (mg/l)

0.038

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

Total Suspended Solids

95

Mean (mg/l)

1.24

Median (mg/l)

1.12

Mean (mg/l)

8.2

Median (mg/l)
Copper

Baseline
Condition

6.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0023

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

4-35

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-9

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

44.24

65.26

56.95

10.86

2.19

--

11.61

9.27

1.75

3.28

3.20

2.34

1.22

10.02

--

0.94

44.85

--

--

--

TSS

tons

12.38

25.52

22.15

3.39

0.37

--

0.79

0.64

0.07

1.45

0.81

0.44

0.19

2.28

--

0.23

1.80

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

1,987

5,251

5,435

1,555

181

--

403

264

33

209

428

182

86

337

--

36

1,923

--

--

--

FC
billion counts
8,970
555
826
157
19
-336
622
154
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

335

156

249

149

4,066

--

362

168

--

--

--

Loads

Units

TABLE 4-10
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

4%

1%

--

4%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

4%

--

TSS

17%

35%

31%

5%

1%

--

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

0%

3%

--

BOD

11%

29%

30%

8%

1%

--

2%

1%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

2%

--

FC
52%
3%
5%
1%
0%
-2%
4%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

1%

24%

--

SSOs

Government /
Institution

21%

CSOs

Forest

24%

Industrial

Crop (D)

17%

Wetland

Crop (C)

TP

Ultra Low

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

0%

17%

--

--

--

0%

2%

--

--

--

0%

11%

--

--

--

2%

1%

--

--

--

Loads

4-36

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-11
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.018

0.027

0.024

0.005

0.001

--

0.005

0.004

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.004

--

0.000

0.019

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.005

0.011

0.009

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

--

0.000

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

0.828

2.188

2.265

0.648

0.076

--

0.168

0.110

0.014

0.087

0.178

0.076

0.036

0.140

--

0.015

0.801

--

--

--

--

--

FC
billion counts/acre
3.738 0.231 0.344 0.065 0.008
-0.140
0.259
0.064
0.140
0.065 0.104 0.062
1.695
-0.151
0.070
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-37

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within North Branch Menomonee River (MN-1) was also evaluated. The index of
flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within the
North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area, the flashiness was characterized as very
good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and
decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports
the reach‟s natural aquatic life and habitat regime. This assessment point area contains one plant
community site, which was rated as fairly good. 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. During the warm weather months, the
minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate for the annual measure and the
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 1%
reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon
the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC load in this
assessment point area. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data in this assessment point area
are presented in TABLE 4-12. 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 following paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, for some assessment point areas, the table
evaluates compliance with 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 for MN-1. TABLE 4-14 presents the
Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load. TABLE 4-15 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 1% reduction in FC loads, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that there wouldn‟t be any appreciable change in the assessment of FC. The
assessment of FC (annual) would remain as moderate and FC (swimming season) would remain
as good. The characterization of the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would
remain unchanged as moderate and very good, respectively. Total suspended solids would
remain as very good and the assessment of TP would improve from good to very good. Note
that 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, including special water quality variance standards. Modeling of the
Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the North Branch

4-38

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Menomonee River assessment point area would remain unchanged as very good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-12
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Assessment
Point
MN-1
North Branch
Menomonee River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

726

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

80

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

68

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

309

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

700

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

87

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

44

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

152

Mean (mg/l)

9.5

Median (mg/l)

9.5

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

90

Mean (mg/l)

0.046

Median (mg/l)

0.038

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

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

Year 2020
Condition

95

Mean (mg/l)

0.95

Median (mg/l)

0.88

Mean (mg/l)

7.1

Median (mg/l)

5.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0022

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-39

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-13

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / YEAR)

15.85

15.92

2.28

1.47

1.91

1.50

0.32

13.37

--

9.76

1.82

0.87

--

1.25

1.33

0.11

0.66

0.48

0.27

0.05

3.01

--

4,282

1,516

420

--

649

565

50

97

324

149

29

464

--

218

149

12

20

5

5,269

--

FC
billion counts
8,864
47
64
15
45
-494
1,145
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

--

CSOs

5.08

Industrial

Transportation

6.75

Wetland

Residential

28.67

Ultra Low

Pasture (D)

4,468

Pasture (C)

12.47

2,008

Pasture (B)

12.15

Industrial

tons
pounds

Grass (D)

TSS
BOD

Grass (C)

35.45

Grass (B)

43.74

Government /
Institution

pounds

Forest

Units

TP

Crop (D)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Crop (C)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

0.95

52.85

--

--

--

0.23

2.12

--

--

--

37

2,266

--

--

--

354

198

--

--

--

TABLE 4-14
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

16%

13%

3%

2%

--

7%

7%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

6%

--

TSS

tons

26%

27%

21%

4%

2%

--

3%

3%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

6%

--

BOD

pounds

12%

26%

25%

9%

2%

--

4%

3%

0%

1%

2%

1%

0%

3%

--

FC
billion count
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-3%
7%
1%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

0%

0%

31%

--

4-40

SSOs

Government /
Institution

19%

CSOs

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

Units

TP

Wetland

Crop (C)

Loads

Ultra Low

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

0%

23%

--

--

--

0%

5%

--

--

--

0%

13%

--

--

--

2%

1%

--

--

--

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-15

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Government /
Institution

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds/acre

0.017

0.015

0.012

0.003

0.002

--

0.007

0.007

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.005

--

0.000

0.022

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.005

0.005

0.004

0.001

0.000

--

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

--

0.000

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

0.837

1.862

1.785

0.632

0.175

--

0.270

0.236

0.021

0.040

0.135

0.062

0.000

0.193

--

0.016

0.944

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

3.507

0.019

0.027

0.006

0.019

--

0.206

0.477

0.091

0.062

0.005

0.008

0.002

2.131

--

0.141

0.083

--

--

--

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-41

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.2 Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5)
The Upper Menomonee River area is located in the north central portion of the Menomonee
River watershed. Assessment points MN-2 and MN-5 are located along the mainstem in this
area. Throughout these two assessment point areas, the mainstem of the Upper Menomonee
River flows southwesterly for about six miles and then southeasterly for about two miles.
The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is located predominantly in the
village of Germantown, but some of the area is located in the town of Germantown and the city
of Mequon. The river begins just south of the Pioneer Road at CTH M, on the west side of the
city of Mequon. It flows southwesterly across Bonniwell Road, past Wilderness Park and south
across Holy Hill / Highland Roads. From there, it flows southwesterly for about ¼ mile where it
changes direction and flows westerly towards the WCL/CN rail line, north of CTH F. After
flowing west of the rail line, the river again flows southwesterly and passes north of Fireman‟s
Park and Kennedy Middle School. The river eventually flows past the Wisconsin & Southern
Rail line (WSOR) on the north side of the Lake Park Golf Course and enters the Upper
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) (Figure 4-13), see following section. This is
also the approximate location of the confluence with the West Branch Menomonee River (MN3), see page 77.
With the exception of development in the area around CTHs F and G in the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-2), the river flows through agricultural lands and much of the
mainstem‟s riparian corridor exceeds 75 feet in this area. Throughout the area, the river flows
along a predominantly natural channel. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-2) covers about 9.4 square miles (Figure 4-12). The Upper Menomonee River assessment
point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land use throughout the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (54%). Recreation, natural areas, and open
space land uses make up nearly 31% of the total land use. Low-density residential (defined on
following table) along with transportation, institutional and governmental, manufacturing and
industrial, commercial, and high-density residential land uses compose the remaining 15%.
Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 5%
of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is impervious. TABLE 4-16
presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area.

4-42

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-16

LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-2) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Land Use
Agriculture

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

5.1

54.12%

0.7

7.08%

0.0

0.40%

Commercial

0.0

0.56%

Institutional & Governmental

0.1

0.84%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

3.0

31.49%

Transportation

0.5

5.03%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.0

0.48%

Total

9.4

100.00%

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.

4-43

Pioneer Road

!

MN-2
!
!

Mequon Road

!

Ap

!

pl

et
on
Av
.
!

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

0

³

1,000 2,000
Feet

Figure 4-12
MN-2 Land Use
4,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

!

!
!

Mequon Road

Ap

!

pl
e

to
n
Av

.

MN-5

!

Main St.
!

!

M

n
ai

St

.
LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Land Use

Waterbodies

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Water

Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

0

³

800 1,600
Feet

Figure 4-13
MN-5 Land Use
3,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). The municipalities include: the city of
Mequon, the town of Germantown, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 86% of the
9.4 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The city of Mequon occupies
nearly 9% of the assessment point area. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 5%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN2) assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Civil Division

Civil Division within Assessment
Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Mequon

0.9

9.01%

Town of Germantown

0.4

4.55%

Village of Germantown

8.1

86.44%

Total

9.4

100.00%

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 Upper Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within this assessment point area, the
largest contributors to Baseline FC loads are commercial (47%) and residential (21%) land uses;
the largest contributors of TP are industrial point sources (58%) and commercial land use (11%).
It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly
affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area
reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence
of “unknown sources” in this assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. In
general, FC concentrations don‟t spike to „above 5,000‟ levels as frequently as with other
assessment point areas within the Menomonee River watershed. Fecal coliform concentrations
tend to be highest during high flows; this suggests that nonpoint sources are contributing to FC
concentrations in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). See Figure 4-14,
Figure 4-15, and Figure 4-16. Note: the black line on Figure 4-14 represents the cumulative
number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Total phosphorus was also assessed in detail. The concentrations of TP were assessed as poor
and they tend to be highest during low flow periods. This trend suggests that a background
source of phosphorus could be present. The background source could be associated with
agricultural drain tile discharges or releases from private onsite wastewater treatment systems
(including agricultural lagoons).

4-46

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS
data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during
the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations typically decline during the summer
months, which could be a function of decreased water agitation and increased water temperature.
The moderate variability in DO concentrations suggests that there may be algal growth, organic
enrichment, and increased oxygen demand within the river.
The concentrations of TSS were characterized as very good in the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-2). The data indicate that TSS concentrations are generally low and
they decline even lower during the winter months. Settling of suspended solids, especially
within the wetlands located within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2),
could be contributing to the low TSS concentrations. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail
on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-18. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the
table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-19 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2), TABLE 420 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-21 presents the
Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point MN-1 is located upstream.
The Baseline cumulative loads, including those from MN-1, are estimated. TABLE 4-22
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-23 presents the Baseline
percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-24 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-47

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Upper Menomonee River (RI 803)
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 4-14

MN-2 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-15

MN-2 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Upper Menomonee River – Reach 803
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 4-16

MN-2 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-18

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Upper Menomonee
(annual)
River

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

797

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

75

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

124

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

262

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

602

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

86

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

79

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

144

Mean (mg/l)

9.3

Median (mg/l)

9.1

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.09

Median (mg/l)

0.072

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

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

Baseline
Condition

70

Mean (mg/l)

0.77

Median (mg/l)

0.72

Mean (mg/l)

7.9

Median (mg/l)

5.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0024

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-51

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-19

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

187.70

31.00

125.16

2.62

8.94

7.23

36.46

57.85

8.04

16.61

5.93

34.37

2.28

41.03

--

15.16

141.37

988.18

--

--

TSS

tons

52.52

12.12

48.69

0.82

1.53

2.23

2.47

4.00

0.33

7.35

1.51

6.41

0.35

9.33

--

3.79

5.67

1.60

--

--

BOD

pounds

8,429

2,494

11,946

375

739

618

1,266

1,650

150

1,059

793

2,677

161

1,377

--

583

6,061

6,760

--

--

FC
billion counts
38,057
263
1,814
38
78
5,936
1,054
3,887
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

709

1,697

289

3,656

278

16,643

--

5,847

530

0.00

--

--

TABLE 4-20
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

11%

2%

7%

0%

1%

0%

2%

3%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

2%

--

1%

8%

58%

--

--

TSS

33%

8%

30%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

0%

5%

1%

4%

0%

6%

--

2%

4%

1%

--

--

BOD

18%

5%

25%

1%

2%

1%

3%

4%

0%

2%

2%

6%

0%

3%

--

1%

13%

14%

--

--

FC
47%
0%
2%
0%
0%
7%
1%
5%
1%
2%
0%
5%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

21%

--

7%

1%

0%

--

--

Loads

4-52

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-21

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.035

0.006

0.024

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.007

0.011

0.002

0.003

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.008

--

0.003

0.027

0.186

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.010

0.002

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

--

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.586

0.469

2.247

0.070

0.139

0.116

0.238

0.310

0.028

0.199

0.149

0.504

0.030

0.259

--

0.110

1.140

1.272

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

7.159

0.050

0.341

0.007

0.015

1.116

0.198

0.731

0.133

0.319

0.054

0.688

0.052

3.131

--

1.100

0.100

0.000

--

--

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-22
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

231.94

96.25

182.11

13.48

11.14

7.23

48.07

67.12

9.79

19.89

9.13

36.71

3.51

51.05

--

16.09

186.22

988.18

--

--

TSS

tons

64.90

37.64

70.84

4.21

1.90

2.23

3.26

4.64

0.41

8.80

2.32

6.85

0.54

11.61

--

4.02

7.47

1.60

--

--

BOD

pounds

10,416

7,745

17,381

1,930

921

618

1,670

1,915

183

1,269

1,220

2,860

247

1,714

--

619

7,984

6,760

--

--

FC

billion counts

47,027

818

2,640

194

98

5,936

1,389

4,509

864

2,032

445

3,905

428

20,710

--

6,209

698

0.00

--

--

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-53

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-23

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

12%

5%

9%

1%

1%

0%

2%

3%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

3%

--

1%

9%

50%

--

--

TSS

tons

28%

16%

30%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

4%

1%

3%

0%

5%

--

2%

3%

1%

--

--

BOD

pounds

16%

12%

27%

3%

1%

1%

3%

3%

0%

2%

2%

4%

0%

3%

--

1%

12%

10%

--

--

billion counts

48%

1%

3%

0%

0%

6%

1%

5%

1%

2%

0%

4%

0%

21%

--

6%

1%

0%

--

--

FC

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-24
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.030

0.012

0.024

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.006

0.009

0.001

0.003

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.007

--

0.002

0.024

0.128

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.008

0.005

0.009

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

--

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.350

1.004

2.253

0.250

0.119

0.080

0.216

0.248

0.024

0.164

0.158

0.371

0.032

0.222

--

0.080

1.035

0.876

--

--

billion counts/acre 6.095

0.106

0.342

0.025

0.013

0.769

0.180

0.584

0.112

0.263

0.058

0.506

0.055

2.684

--

0.805

0.090

0.000

--

--

FC

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-54

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) was also
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet
weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and
habitat regime. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area contains three plant
community sites. Their quality ranges from very poor to 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. 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 not result in
reductions from Baseline TP and FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area.
Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC
loads in this assessment point area.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-25. This table also
reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-2). 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 4-26 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-27 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-28 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point MN-1 is upstream of the Upper
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). TABLE 4-29 presents the Year 2020
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-30 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown
for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-31 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
The assessment of FC (annual) would deteriorate from moderate to poor. The assessment of FC
(swimming season) would deteriorate from good to moderate. The assessment of the other
parameter of focus, TP, would also remain poor. The other water quality parameters were
already characterized 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 there also wouldn‟t be any change in the assessment of flashiness (very
4-55

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

good) in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-25
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT
AREA (MN-2)
Assessment
Point
MN-2
Upper
Menomonee
River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

832

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

73

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

100

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

269

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

502

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

85

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

53

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

147

Mean (mg/l)

9.3

Median (mg/l)

9.1

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.091

Median (mg/l)

0.073

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

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

Year 2020
Condition

70

Mean (mg/l)

0.62

Median (mg/l)

0.59

Mean (mg/l)

7.4

Median (mg/l)

5.1

Mean (mg/l)

0.0024

Median (mg/l)

0.0011

4-56

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-26

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)

8,324

806

1,000

92.64

--

16.73

0.53

2.08

0.15

21.34

--

4.18

357

1,144

95

3,214

--

662

13

156

16

34,240

--

5,855

569

SSOs

713

1.06

CSOs

1,490

4.90

186

11.57

Industrial

5,542

0.41

2.10

Wetland

127

9.70
4,109

Ultra Low

2

3.77
1,957

Transportation

109

664

10.83

Residential

16

2.36

1,200

8.39

Pasture (D)

33,881

FC

2.48

251

115.72

Pasture (C)

billion counts

BOD

0.30

47.81

Pasture (B)

pounds

7,319

7.73

Industrial

16.69

1,578

tons

14.51

Grass (D)

4.41

8,348

TSS

1.12

Grass (C)

50.94

pounds

Point Source

Grass (B)

49.01

TP

Government /
Institution

Crop (C)

12.52

Units

Forest

Crop (B)

181.04

Loads

Crop (D)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

151.93

988.18

--

--

6.10

1.60

--

--

6,514

6,760

--

--

0.00

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-27
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

11%

1%

3%

0%

1%

0%

3%

7%

0%

1%

0%

1%

0%

5%

--

1%

9%

58%

--

--

TSS

tons

39%

3%

13%

0%

2%

2%

3%

7%

0%

4%

0%

2%

0%

16%

--

3%

5%

1%

--

--

BOD

pounds

19%

4%

16%

1%

3%

1%

4%

9%

0%

2%

1%

3%

0%

7%

--

1%

14%

15%

--

--

FC

billion counts

37%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

2%

9%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

37%

--

6%

1%

0%

--

--

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-57

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-28

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.033

0.002

0.009

0.000

0.003

0.001

0.009

0.022

0.002

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.017

--

0.003

0.029

0.186

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.010

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.004

--

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.570

0.297

1.377

0.047

0.226

0.125

0.368

0.773

0.035

0.134

0.067

0.215

0.000

0.605

--

0.125

1.225

1.272

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

6.173
0.003
0.021 0.000 0.024
1.027
0.280
1.566
0.152
0.188
0.002 0.029 0.003
6.373
-1.076
0.107
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

--

TABLE 4-29
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

224.77

47.98

77.68

7.87

19.59

7.73

63.66

131.64

10.67

12.30

4.01

13.07

1.38

106.00

--

17.68

204.78

988.18

--

--

TSS

tons

63.09

16.88

26.45

2.12

3.34

2.36

5.01

11.03

0.52

5.56

1.01

2.35

0.20

24.36

--

4.41

8.22

1.60

--

--

BOD

pounds

10,356

6,046

11,601

1,766

1,620

664

2,607

4,674

237

810

682

1,293

124

3,678

--

700

8,780

6,760

--

--

FC

billion counts

42,745

63

173

17

172

5,542

1,984

9,469

1,024

1,149

25

177

21

39,508

--

6,209

767

0.00

--

--

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-58

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-30

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

12%

2%

4%

0%

1%

0%

3%

7%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

5%

--

1%

11%

51%

--

--

TSS

tons

35%

9%

15%

1%

2%

1%

3%

6%

0%

3%

1%

1%

0%

14%

--

2%

5%

1%

--

--

BOD

pounds

17%

10%

19%

3%

3%

1%

4%

7%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

6%

--

1%

14%

11%

--

--

FC

billion counts

39%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

2%

9%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

36%

--

6%

1%

0%

--

--

Loads

Units

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-31
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds/acre

0.029

0.006

0.010

0.001

0.003

0.001

0.008

0.017

0.001

0.002

0.001 0.002

0.000

0.014

--

0.002

0.027

0.128

--

--

tons/acre

0.008

0.002

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000 0.000

0.000

0.003

--

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.342

0.784

1.504

0.229

0.210

0.086

0.338

0.606

0.031

0.105

0.088 0.168

0.016

0.477

--

0.091

1.138

0.876

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

5.540

0.008

0.022

0.002

0.022

0.718

0.257

1.227

0.133

0.149

0.003 0.023

0.003

5.120

--

0.805

0.099

0.000

--

--

Units

Pasture (C)

Crop (C)

TP
TSS

Loads

Pasture (B)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-59

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

MN-5
Assessment point MN-5 is located downstream of MN-2, along the mainstem of the Upper
Menomonee River. On the upstream end of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5), the river flows southwesterly through Lake Park Swamp and the Lake Park Golf
Course, past Germantown High School, across STH 167 and flows south through SchoenLauffen Park. About ½ mile south of the park, the river crosses USH 41/45, just east of the
Maple Lane overpass on USH 41/45. The river continues south along Maple Lane where it
changes direction and flows southeasterly about ¼ mile from the Rivers Bend Golf Club. The
river continues along the south and west sides of the club and then passes under CTH Q, just
west of the USH 41/45 and CTH Q interchange. From this point, the river flows east along the
south side of CTH Q. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-5) is located about ¼ mile south of the CTH Q interchange. At this point, the
river flows into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9), see page 156. The
Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4) is located to the west and flows into the Upper
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) about ¼ mile south of the Maple Lane
overpass on US 41/45, see page 92.
MN-5‟s assessment point area encompasses 8.3 square miles (Figure 4-13). This assessment
point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. In general,
the northern half of the area is developed with low density residential and the riparian buffer
along the river is less than 25 feet. Farther southwest, the buffer width increases as the river
flows through a predominantly agricultural area. Throughout the assessment point area, the river
flows along a predominantly natural channel and the width of the buffer is less than 75 feet along
nearly 60% of the stream within the area. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5) contains a fair amount of commercial development in the
village of Menomonee Falls.
As noted above, the land uses throughout the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (32%). Low-density
residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 24% of the total land use while
transportation makes up nearly 19% of the total land use. Agriculture along with high-density
residential, commercial, institutional and governmental, and manufacturing & industrial land
uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 18% of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5) is impervious. TABLE 4-32 presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-5).

4-60

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-32
LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

1.3

16.03%

2.0

23.72%

0.3

3.87%

Commercial

0.2

2.47%

Institutional & Governmental

0.1

1.51%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

2.7

32.19%

Transportation

1.6

18.92%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.1

1.29%

Total

8.3

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.

Portions of two municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). The municipalities are the village of
Germantown and the village of Menomonee Falls. Nearly 92% of the 8.3 square mile
assessment point area is located within the village of Germantown. The village of Menomonee
Falls occupies the remaining 8%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5) is presented in TABLE 4-33.
TABLE 4-33
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point Area
within Civil Division

Village of Germantown

7.6

91.59%

Village of Menomonee Falls

0.7

8.41%

Total

8.3

100.00%

Civil Division

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in the Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within this assessment point area, the largest
contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (44%) and grass grown on hydrologic
group C soils (13%). The largest contributors to FC are commercial (50%) and residential (24%)

4-61

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in
turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment
point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no
significant evidence of “unknown sources” in this assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. While
FC concentrations at this site tend to exhibit only infrequent spikes of „above 5,000‟ counts, FC
counts regularly exceed regulatory standards during periods with high flows. See Figure 4-17,
Figure 4-18, and Figure 4-19. Note: the black line on Figure 4-17 represents the cumulative
number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Total phosphorus concentrations were characterized as poor. Within the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5), concentrations of TP tend to peak during high flows and
during low flows. This suggests that there are likely two prominent sources of TP within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area. The sources likely include a background source
of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable during low flows and nonpoint contributions that
increase the TP concentrations during high flows.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and
TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during
the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-34. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table,
the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples exhibit chloride concentrations that are below those that
are toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations measured in March consistently exceed the
chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no
winter data. Note that concentrations in the spring samples (which include snow melt and spring
runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. However, chloride concentrations during the winter
would be expected to be greater than those measured in spring. As the field data used to develop
this figure do not include samples from the winter, it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions
regarding chloride (Figure 4-20).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
4-62

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-35 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-36 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-37 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-4 are upstream of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5). The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from MN-1 through MN-4, are
estimated. TABLE 4-38 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-39
presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-40 presents
the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-63

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ County Line Road (RI 16)
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

MN-5 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-18

MN-5 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

County Line Road (RI-16) – Reach 823
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 4-19

MN-5 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-34

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Assessment
Point
MN-5
Menomonee River
at WashingtonWaukesha County
Line

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

68

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

205

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

202

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

890

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

82

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

105

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

125

Mean (mg/l)

10.5

Median (mg/l)

10.7

Total Suspended Solids

0.097

Median (mg/l)

0.063
70

Mean (mg/l)

1.21

Median (mg/l)

1.08

Mean (mg/l)

10.2

Median (mg/l)
Copper

99

Mean (mg/l)

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

1,417

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

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

Baseline
Condition

6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0041

Median (mg/l)

0.0016

4-67

County Line Road (RI-16) – Reach 823
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 4-20

MN-5 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-35

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)

33.56

3.10

2.98

3.09

143.27

49.83

3.54

4.78

12.35

1.95

14.84

0.76

0.54

0.47

32.58

18.50

982

2,447

5,098

876

2,140

399

226

217

4,810

2,138

4,145

3,429

145

308

375

58,122

6,303

121,420
180
316
113
40
9,432
2,036
12,005
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

47.08

CSOs

180.32

Industrial

70.96

Wetland

11.48

Ultra Low

378

Transportation

0.78

810

Residential

2.88

Pasture (D)

9.66
1,484

Pasture (C)

billion counts

9.31
1,440

Pasture (B)

FC

4.67

Industrial

26,893

7.90

Grass (D)

pounds

22.09

Grass (C)

167.56

BOD

21.61

Grass (B)

tons

Point Source

Government /
Institution

598.86

TSS

Forest

pounds

Crop (D)

Units

TP

Crop (C)

Loads

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

64.60

82.84

--

--

1.42

16.14

3.31

--

--

0.04

2,485

3,539

--

--

20

24,921

309

--

--

1,551

TABLE 4-36
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

44%

2%

2%

1%

0%

1%

5%

13%

3%

2%

0%

0%

0%

11%

4%

5%

6%

--

--

0%

TSS

56%

3%

3%

1%

0%

1%

2%

4%

1%

5%

0%

0%

0%

11%

6%

5%

1%

--

--

0%

BOD

48%

3%

3%

1%

1%

2%

4%

9%

2%

4%

1%

0%

0%

9%

4%

4%

6%

--

--

0%

FC
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
1%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

24%

3%

10%

0%

--

--

1%

Loads

4-69

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-37

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

Pounds/acre

0.127

0.005

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.002

0.015

0.038

0.010

0.007

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.030

0.011

0.014

0.018

--

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.035

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.004

0.003

0.001

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

5.682

0.304

0.314

0.171

0.080

0.207

0.517

1.077

0.185

0.452

0.084

0.048

0.046

1.016

0.452

0.525

0.748

--

--

0.004

FC

billion counts/acre

25.652

0.038

0.067

0.024

0.008

1.993

0.430

2.536

0.876

0.724

0.031

0.065

0.079

12.279

1.332

5.265

0.065

--

--

0.328

Loads

Units

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-38
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)

286.45

121.02

111.54

SSOs

9.81

CSOs

49.27

Industrial

30.08

Wetland

164.24

Ultra Low

69.77

Transportation

315.42

Residential

280.37

Pasture (D)

20.69

Pasture (C)

Industrial

29.27

Point Source

Pasture (B)

Grass (D)

27.96

Grass (C)

260.56

Grass (B)

224.01

Government /
Institution

1257.36

Forest

Crop (D)

pounds

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Crop (B)

Loads

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

361.78

988.18

--

1.42

TSS

tons

351.81

90.43

103.91

9.47

4.92

6.38

18.89

21.65

2.90

72.62

7.47

9.14

1.50

65.14

44.93

27.86

14.49

1.60

--

0.04

BOD

pounds

56,465

17,034

23,380

3,422

2,386

1,769

9,667

8,938

1,298

10,473

3,927

3,820

689

9,617

5,191

4,290

15,487

6,760

--

20

FC

billion counts

254,933

1,892

3,767

402

253

16,998

8,044

21,048

6,143

16,778

1,432

5,216

1,191

116,205

15,307

43,032

1,354

0

--

1,551

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-70

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-39

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

27%

5%

6%

1%

1%

0%

6%

7%

2%

4%

1%

1%

0%

6%

3%

2%

8%

0%

--

0%

TSS

tons

41%

11%

12%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

0%

8%

1%

1%

0%

8%

5%

3%

2%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

31%

9%

13%

2%

1%

1%

5%

5%

1%

6%

2%

2%

0%

5%

3%

2%

8%

4%

--

0%

FC

billion
counts

49%

0%

1%

0%

0%

3%

2%

4%

1%

3%

0%

1%

0%

23%

3%

8%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-40
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.066

0.012

0.014

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.015

0.017

0.004

0.009

0.002

0.003

0.001

0.015

0.006

0.006

0.019

0.052

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.018

0.005

0.005

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

2.969

0.896

1.229

0.180

0.125

0.093

0.508

0.470

0.068

0.551

0.206

0.201

0.036

0.506

0.273

0.226

0.814

0.355

--

0.001

FC

billion
counts/acre

13.405

0.099

0.198

0.021

0.013

0.894

0.423

1.107

0.323

0.882

0.075

0.274

0.063

6.110

0.805

2.263

0.071

0.000

--

0.082

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-71

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) was also
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet
weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and
habitat regime. Assessments were performed on three plant communities within the assessment
point area. The quality assessments of these areas range from poor to fair. 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 not result in
reductions from Baseline TP or FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based
upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC loads in
this assessment point area.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-41. 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 4-42 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-5), TABLE 4-43 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for
each load, and TABLE 4-44 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Assessment points MN-1 through MN-4 are upstream of MN-5. TABLE 4-45 presents the Year
2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-46 presents the Year 2020 cumulative
percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-47 presents the Year 2020 cumulative
annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
The water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldn‟t be any
appreciable change in the assessments of the parameters of focus (FC or TP). The assessments
of FC (annual) and FC (swimming season) would both remain poor and moderate, respectively.
The assessment of the other parameter of focus, TP, would also remain poor. The other water
quality parameters would remain characterized 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.
4-72

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there also wouldn‟t be any change in the
assessment of flashiness (very good) within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness
under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-41
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-5)
Assessment
Point
MN-5
Menomonee
River at
WashingtonWaukesha
County Line

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

67

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

180

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

214

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

657

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

81

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

79

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

134

Mean (mg/l)

10.5

Median (mg/l)

10.7

Total Suspended Solids

0.102

Median (mg/l)

0.065
69

Mean (mg/l)

0.95

Median (mg/l)

0.85

Mean (mg/l)

9.7

Median (mg/l)
Copper

99

Mean (mg/l)

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

1,362

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

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

Year 2020
Condition

5.5

Mean (mg/l)

0.0042

Median (mg/l)

0.0016

4-73

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-42

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)

0.86

0.18

--

0.80

BOD

pounds

29,832

252

57

--

385

FC

billion counts

120,336

3

1

--

41

10,000

0.09

0.01

0.00

169.51

48.24

14.44

2.27

21.04

0.02

0.00

0.00

37.10

17.78

6,115

1,033

3,065

14

1

0

5,888

2,076

12,869

4,580

4,405

0

0

0

60,735

5,828

SSOs

178.47

47.30

CSOs

tons

47.82

Industrial

TSS

181.62

Wetland

4.76

Ultra Low

--

Transportation

0.50

Residential

2.36

Pasture (D)

653.59

Pasture (C)

pounds

Pasture (B)

TP

Industrial

Units

Grass (D)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (C)

Grass (B)
2,549

Forest

6.25
3,245

Crop (D)

4.21
1,192

Crop (C)

82.67

Crop (B)

14.32

Commercial

Government /
Institution

Nonpoint Source

69.00

83.58

--

--

0.47

16.67

3.34

--

--

0.01

2,744

3,570

--

--

7

23,180

312

--

--

517

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-43
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

46%

0%

0%

--

0%

1%

6%

13%

3%

3%

0%

0%

0%

12%

3%

5%

6%

--

--

0%

TSS

tons

59%

0%

0%

--

0%

1%

2%

5%

1%

7%

0%

0%

0%

12%

6%

5%

1%

--

--

0%

BOD

pounds

50%

0%

0%

--

1%

2%

5%

10%

2%

5%

0%

0%

0%

10%

3%

5%

6%

--

--

0%

FC

billion counts

49%

0%

0%

--

0%

4%

1%

5%

2%

2%

0%

0%

0%

25%

2%

9%

0%

--

--

0%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-74

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-44

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.130

0.000

0.000

--

0.001

0.003

0.017

0.038

0.010

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.033

0.010

0.013

0.018

--

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.038

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

0.004

0.004

0.001

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.302

0.053

0.012

--

0.081

0.252

0.686

1.292

0.218

0.647

0.003

0.000

0.000

1.244

0.439

0.580

0.754

--

--

0.001

FC

billion counts/acre

24.286

0.001

0.000

--

0.009

2.070

0.539

2.719

0.968

0.931

0.000

0.000

0.000

12.414

1.231

4.710

0.066

--

--

0.000

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-45
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

1,333.89

83.20

97.25

9.56

44.01

24.95

366.57

404.63

77.08

191.10

7.81

15.07

1.45

394.69

116.40

118.19

392.99

988.18

--

0.00

TSS

tons

361.86

29.51

33.30

2.60

7.42

7.33

27.91

32.85

3.66

85.76

1.93

2.70

0.21

87.69

43.24

28.34

15.74

1.60

--

0.01

pounds

60,603

10,179

14,131

2,022

3,593

2,075

14,492

13,912

1,663

12,483

1,294 1,486

130

13,629

5,048

4,666

16,824

6,760

--

7

110

217

21

381

17,326

11,323

28,839

7,381

17,791

23

143,543

13,671

40,027

1,471

0

--

517

BOD
FC

billion counts 249,450

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-75

47

203

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-46

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

29%

2%

2%

0%

1%

1%

8%

9%

2%

4%

0%

0%

0%

8%

2%

3%

8%

21%

--

0%

TSS

tons

47%

4%

4%

0%

1%

1%

4%

4%

0%

11%

0%

0%

0%

11%

6%

4%

2%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

33%

6%

8%

1%

2%

1%

8%

8%

1%

7%

1%

1%

0%

7%

3%

3%

9%

4%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

47%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

2%

5%

1%

3%

0%

0%

0%

27%

3%

8%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

Units

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-47
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Grass (B)

Wetland

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.070

0.004

0.005

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.019

0.021

0.004

0.010

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.021

0.006

0.006

0.021

0.052

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.019

0.002

0.002

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

3.187

0.535

0.743

0.106

0.189

0.109

0.762

0.731

0.087

0.656

0.068

0.078

0.007

0.717

0.265

0.245

0.885

0.355

--

0.000

FC

billion
counts/acre

13.116

0.006

0.011

0.001

0.020

0.911

0.595

1.516

0.388

0.935

0.002

0.011

0.001

7.548

0.719

2.105

0.077

0.000

--

0.027

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-76

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.3 West Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-3)
The West Branch Menomonee River is located in the northwestern portion of the Menomonee
River watershed. The West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is located
south of the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-1), see page 26.
The West Branch Menomonee River begins on the west side of the village of Germantown,
about ½ mile east of the Holy Hill Road interchange on USH 41/45. From this point, the river
flows easterly where Goldenthal Creek joins the river just west of CTH Y. From this point, the
river continues to flow southeasterly, past Homestead Hollow County Park and St. Boniface
Grade School, approximately following the WSOR rail line. The river eventually flows into the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) at the intersection of CTH F and G.
In general, the West Branch Menomonee River flows for about 2.5 miles through agricultural
lands to its confluence with the mainstem of the Menomonee River. It is a predominantly natural
channel with a relatively wide riparian margin. The width of the riparian margin exceeds 75 feet
along nearly 70% of the river within this assessment point area. The West Branch Menomonee
River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other
obstructions. Goldenthal Creek is included in this assessment point area (Figure 4-21).
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the West Branch Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-3) is predominantly agriculture (50%). Recreation, natural
areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 23% of the total land use. Highways and local
roads contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 11% of the total land use.
Manufacturing and industrial along with low-density residential (defined on following table),
high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the
remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 12% of the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is
impervious. TABLE 4-48 presents the land uses within the West Branch Menomonee River
assessment point area.

4-77

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-48
LAND USE IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

2.3

49.60%

0.3

6.75%

0.1

1.23%

Commercial

0.0

0.54%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

0.56%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.0

23.07%

Transportation

0.5

11.39%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.3

6.86%

Total

4.5

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.

4-78

!
!

MN-3

Ap
pl

!

et
on

Av
.
!

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies

Land Use

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Commercial

0

³

650 1,300
Feet

Figure 4-21
MN-3 Land Use
2,600

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Washington County are located within the West Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The municipalities include: the town of
Germantown, the town of Richfield, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 96% of the
4.5 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The towns of Germantown
and Richfield occupy the remaining 4%. The extent of the civil divisions within the West
Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is presented in TABLE 4-49.
TABLE 4-49
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

Town of Germantown

0.0

0.05%

Town of Richfield

0.2

4.43%

Village of Germantown

4.3

95.52%

Total

4.5

100.00%

Civil Division

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 West Branch Menomonee River are FC and DO. Within the West Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline loads of FC are
commercial (56%) and industrial (12%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC
loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC
modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of “unknown sources” in this
assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. Fecal
coliform concentrations exceed the regulatory standard about half the time, during high flows.
See Figure 4-22, Figure 4-23, and Figure 4-24. Note: the black line on Figure 4-22 represents the
cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate
and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details
on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The average concentration of
DO exhibits typical declines during the summer months. However, the lower portions of the
ranges decline more than would be expected. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD
in the stream.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed.
The TP concentrations were characterized as good and TSS was very good within West Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The increase in concentrations of both TP and

4-80

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TSS with increasing flows suggests contributions from nonpoint sources. See Chapter 6, Section
6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-50. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the West Branch Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-3). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-51 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-52 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-53 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-81

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ West Branch Menomonee River (RI 812)
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 4-22

MN-3 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-23

MN-3 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

West Branch Menomonee River – Reach 812
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 4-24

MN-3 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-50

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3)
Assessment
Point
MN-3
West Branch
Menomonee River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

77

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

159

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

250

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

712

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

90

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

101

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

144

Mean (mg/l)

9.4

Median (mg/l)

9.5

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

91

Mean (mg/l)

0.053

Median (mg/l)

0.039
91

Mean (mg/l)

1.08

Median (mg/l)

0.96

Mean (mg/l)

10.6

Median (mg/l)
Copper

1,167

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

8.1

Mean (mg/l)

0.0035

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

4-85

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-51

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)

282

0.59

3.86

1.65

0.13

163

1,978

682

59
280

FC

billion counts
43,910
537
374
27
30
1,562
1,646
1,605
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

3.79

0.38

20.95

32.72

38.87

1.95

0.71

0.06

4.77

12.15

5,606

1,023

295

27

703

1,404

8,980

373

403

47

8,500

4,139

SSOs

0.58

268

7.65

CSOs

0.58

2,462

87.91

Industrial

10.04

5,083

3.17

Wetland

24.70

9,726

23.90

Ultra Low

60.60

pounds

56.95

Transportation

tons

BOD

1.90

Residential

3.42

Pasture (D)

1.87

Pasture (C)

25.80

Pasture (B)

63.17

Point Source

Industrial

Forest

216.57

TSS

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

13.59

36.51

--

--

--

3.40

1.46

--

--

--

523

1,565

--

--

--

5,243

137

--

--

--

TABLE 4-52
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

36%

11%

4%

0%

1%

0%

9%

4%

1%

15%

1%

1%

0%

3%

5%

2%

6%

--

--

--

TSS

36%

15%

6%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

23%

1%

0%

0%

3%

7%

2%

1%

--

--

--

BOD

31%

16%

8%

1%

1%

1%

6%

2%

0%

18%

3%

1%

0%

2%

4%

2%

5%

--

--

--

FC
56%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
2%
0%
12%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

11%

5%

7%

0%

--

--

--

Loads

4-86

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-53

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.075

0.022

0.009

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.020

0.008

0.001

0.031

0.003

0.001

0.000

0.007

0.011

0.005

0.013

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.021

0.009

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.014

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.001

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

3.389

1.771

0.858

0.093

0.098

0.057

0.689

0.238

0.021

1.954

0.357

0.103

0.009

0.245

0.489

0.182

0.545

--

--

--

--

--

--

billion
15.302
0.187
0.130
0.009
0.010
0.544
0.574
0.559
0.097
3.130
0.130
0.141
0.016
2.962
1.442
1.827 0.048
FC
counts/acre
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-87

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) was
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests
that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather
or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and habitat regime.
Five assessed plant communities are located within this assessment point area. The quality
assessments of the plant communities range from very poor to fair. 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 moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See
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 reduction
from Baseline FC loads that are derived from the West Branch Menomonee River assessment
point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown
source” FC loads in the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3).
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented TABLE 4-54. 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 4-55 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-56 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-57 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldn‟t be any
appreciable change in the assessments of the parameters of focus (FC and DO). Recall that FC
was assessed as moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. The
assessments of the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain unchanged as
moderate and very good, respectively. The assessment of TP would remain as good and the
assessment of TSS would remain as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality
assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC
Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the
Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness would deteriorate from good to

4-88

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

poor at West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). See Chapter 6, Section
6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-54
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-3)
Assessment
Point
MN-3
West Branch
Menomonee
River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

1,161

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

76

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

127

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

262

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

612

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

87

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

70

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

147

Mean (mg/l)

9.4

Median (mg/l)

9.4

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

91

Mean (mg/l)

0.053

Median (mg/l)

0.038

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

Year 2020
Condition

91

Mean (mg/l)

0.79

Median (mg/l)

0.71

Mean (mg/l)

10.0

Median (mg/l)

7.2

Mean (mg/l)

0.0036

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-89

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-55

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

247.21

19.29

8.39

0.08

5.50

2.81

94.05

35.42

4.59

104.45

1.05

0.73

0.05

36.90

30.92

17.52

42.29

--

--

--

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

TSS

tons

62.55

BOD

pounds

11,029

FC

billion counts

47,656

25

6.79

2.86

0.02

0.94

0.73

2,431

1,253

18

454

211

7.41

2.97

0.22

47.27

0.27

0.13

3,851

1,258

102

6,878

179

73

19

0.00

48

1,723

2,932

2,548

440

9,700

7

10

0.01

7.70

11.75

4

1,288

1,370

1

12,756

3,522

3.80

1.70

--

--

--

681

1,813

--

--

--

5,703

159

--

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-56
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

38%

3%

1%

0%

1%

0%

14%

5%

1%

16%

0%

0%

0%

6%

5%

3%

6%

--

--

--

TSS

tons

40%

4%

2%

0%

1%

0%

5%

2%

0%

30%

0%

0%

0%

5%

7%

2%

1%

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

34%

7%

4%

0%

1%

1%

12%

4%

0%

21%

1%

0%

0%

4%

4%

2%

6%

--

--

--

FC

billion counts

55%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

3%

3%

1%

11%

0%

0%

0%

15%

4%

7%

0%

--

--

--

Loads

Units

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-90

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-57

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.072

0.007

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.033

0.012

0.002

0.036

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.011

0.011

0.005

0.015

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.022

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.001

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.004

0.001

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

3.844

0.847

0.437

0.006

0.158

0.074

1.342

0.438

0.035

2.397

0.062

0.025

0.000

0.449

0.477

0.237

0.632

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

13.216
0.009
0.007 0.000 0.017
0.544
1.022
0.888
0.153
3.381
0.002 0.003 0.000
3.942
1.227
1.656
0.055
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

--

4-91

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.4 Willow Creek (Assessment Point MN-4)
Willow Creek is located in the northwestern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The
Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) encompasses about 5.9 square miles. This
tributary flows northeasterly for almost 2.5 miles before its confluence with the Menomonee
River. The creek begins in the village of Menomonee Falls at CTH Y, about a mile south of
CTH Q. The creek flows northeasterly across CTH Q into the village of Germantown and
towards STH 175, where it joins with an unnamed tributary that flows easterly from the town of
Richfield, past Weidenbach Park. From its confluence with the unnamed tributary, Willow
Creek approximately follows CTH Y for about a mile and then changes direction and flows east
under STH 167 and into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). Held
Maple Woods and Kleinman Swamp are located within ½ mile of tributaries to Willow Creek.
With the exception of some low density residential development, most of the creek flows
through agricultural and open space lands. The channel is predominantly natural and the Willow
Creek assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other
obstructions. The riparian margin is relatively wide throughout the area, with the margin along
nearly 60% of the reach exceeding 75 feet. However, there are a few reaches where the width of
the riparian margin is less than 25 feet. The narrow riparian margins can mostly be attributed to
farming right up to the edge of the river. The downstream point of the Willow Creek assessment
point area is located approximately ½ mile southwest of USH 45/STH 167 interchange in the
village of Germantown (Figure 4-25).
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Willow Creek assessment
point area (MN-4) is predominantly agriculture (38%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space
land uses comprise nearly 28% of the total land use within the assessment point area while lowdensity residential (defined on following table) comprises nearly 21% of the total land use within
the area. Transportation along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential,
institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 13%. Based
on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 9% of the
Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) is impervious. TABLE 4-58 presents the land uses
within the Willow Creek assessment point area.

4-92

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-58

LAND USE IN THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

2.2

37.70%

1.3

21.39%

0.0

0.86%

Commercial

0.0

0.27%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

0.09%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.7

28.24%

Transportation

0.6

9.63%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.1

1.82%

Total

5.9

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.

4-93

!

MN-4

Ap
pl
et
on

!

Av

.
!

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utlities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

0

³

650 1,300
Feet

Figure 4-25
MN-4 Land Use
2,600

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of four municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the
Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4). The municipalities include: the towns of Lisbon
and Richfield, and the villages of Germantown and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 57% of
the 5.9 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The town of Richfield
occupies nearly 23% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the town of Lisbon
occupy the remaining 20%. The extent of the civil divisions within the assessment point area for
MN-4 is presented in TABLE 4-59.
TABLE 4-59
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Civil Division

Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

Town of Lisbon

0.3

5.27%

Town of Richfield

1.4

23.15%

Village of Germantown

3.4

57.24%

Village of Menomonee Falls

0.8

14.34%

Total

5.9

100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameter of
focus in Willow Creek is FC. Within the Willow Creek assessment point area, the largest
contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (45%) and residential (30%) land uses. It is
important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly
affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Willow Creek
assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is
no significant evidence of “unknown sources” in the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN4).
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. In
contrast, the measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts
exceeded the regulatory standard about 75% of the time. The increases in FC concentrations
during high flows suggest that FC concentrations at MN-4 are primarily attributed to nonpoint
sources. See Figure 4-26, Figure 4-27, and Figure 4-28. Note: the black line on Figure 4-26
represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments of DO, TP, and TSS were performed.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good 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 data indicated that DO
declined during the summer months more than would normally be expected. The decline could
indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within the Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4).
Concentrations of TP were assessed as good and TSS was assessed as very good. Both of these
4-95

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS
data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-60. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Willow Creek Assessment point
area (MN-4). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-61 presents the Baseline annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-62 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and
TABLE 4-63 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads for MN-4 on a per acre basis.

4-96

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Willow 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 4-26

MN-4 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-27

MN-4 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Willow 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 4-28

MN-4 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-60
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment
Point
MN-4
Willow Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

1,244

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

76

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

183

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

218

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

794

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

87

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

125

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

125

Mean (mg/l)

8.9

Median (mg/l)

9.1

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

96

Mean (mg/l)

0.036

Median (mg/l)

0.025

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

Baseline
Condition

93

Mean (mg/l)

0.73

Median (mg/l)

0.65

Mean (mg/l)

9.1

Median (mg/l)

7.3

Mean (mg/l)

0.0030

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-61

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)

10.21

5.80

2.84

71.17

38.46

SSOs

22.87

CSOs

9.73

Industrial

44.08

Wetland

104.38

Ultra Low

0.08

Transportation

10.05

Residential

4.70

Pasture (D)

30.56

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

42.97

Pasture (B)

Forest

209.99

Point Source

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

17.26

56.22

--

--

--

TSS

tons

58.76

18.79

13.36

1.80

1.66

0.03

6.98

3.01

0.40

10.11

2.44

1.05

0.43

16.19

14.28

4.31

2.24

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

9,430

2,765

2,052

415

805

7

3,572

1,244

181

1,459

1,284

439

197

2,389

1,650

664

2,399

--

--

--

FC

billion counts

42,577
357
437
67
85
69
2,973
2,929
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

854

2,337

468

600

341

28,873

4,865

6,659

210

--

--

--

TABLE 4-62
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

3%

1%

1%

0%

10%

6%

3%

8%

--

--

--

0%

4%

2%

0%

6%

2%

1%

0%

10%

9%

3%

1%

--

--

--

0%

12%

4%

1%

5%

4%

1%

1%

8%

5%

2%

8%

--

--

--

FC
45%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
1%
2%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

30%

5%

7%

0%

--

--

--

Forest

1%

Crop (D)

6%

Crop (C)

15%

Crop (B)

0%

Commercial

Grass (B)

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Nonpoint Source

TP

31%

6%

4%

1%

1%

TSS

38%

12%

9%

1%

1%

BOD

30%

9%

7%

1%

3%

Loads

4-101

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-63

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.057

0.012

0.008

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.028

0.012

0.003

0.006

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.019

0.010

0.005

0.015

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.016

0.005

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.003

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.004

0.004

0.001

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

2.549

0.747

0.555

0.112

0.217

0.002

0.966

0.336

0.049

0.394

0.347

0.119

0.053

0.646

0.446

0.179

0.648

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

11.508

0.097

0.118

0.018

0.023

0.019

0.803

0.792

0.231

0.632

0.127

0.162

0.092

7.804

1.315

1.800

0.057

--

--

--

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-102

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) 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 very good. This assessment of flashiness
suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet
weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and
habitat regime. The Willow Creek assessment point area contains four assessed plant
communities. Two of these plant communities were assessed as poor and very poor and two
were assessed as 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 the maximum DO
concentrations were characterized as very good. See 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 4%
reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon
the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC loads in the
Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4).
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Willow Creek assessment point area are
presented in TABLE 4-64. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality
standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed 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 4-65 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for MN-4, TABLE 4-66 presents the
Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-67 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC (annual)
would deteriorate from moderate to poor and that there wouldn‟t be any appreciable change in
the assessment of FC during the swimming season (good). There also wouldn‟t be any change in
the assessments of minimum and maximum DO concentrations (good and very good,
respectively). The assessment of the concentrations of TP would remain good and TSS would
remain 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 Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) would

4-103

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-64
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment
Point
MN-4
Willow Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

1,196

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

75

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

161

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

233

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

607

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

86

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

99

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

136

Mean (mg/l)

8.9

Median (mg/l)

9.1

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

94

Mean (mg/l)

0.037

Median (mg/l)

0.024

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

Year 2020
Condition

93

Mean (mg/l)

0.58

Median (mg/l)

0.51

Mean (mg/l)

8.8

Median (mg/l)

6.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0030

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-104

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-65

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)

2.66

1.26

0.02

82.28

37.24

9.24

4.41

0.64

11.88

0.63

0.22

0.00

18.53

13.72

4,790

1,865

292

1,731

419

119

2

2,775

1,602

3,953

1,337

2,536

15

16

0

30,544

4,321

0.46

2.34

0.02

237

1,133

7

4

120

61

3,858

SSOs

27.06

CSOs

14.00

0.08

Industrial

55.94

14.16

Wetland

24

126.20

1.61

Ultra Low

18

Transportation

38,714

Residential

billion counts

Pasture (D)

FC

3.82
1,220

Pasture (C)

pounds

4.97
1,450

Pasture (B)

BOD

9,386

Industrial

57.75

Grass (D)

tons

10.68

Grass (C)

TSS

13.57

Point Source

Grass (B)

208.33

Government /
Institution

pounds

Forest

TP

Crop (D)

Units

Crop (C)

Loads

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

13.99

62.33

--

--

--

3.46

2.49

--

--

--

541

2,660

--

--

--

4,934

232

--

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-66
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

31%

2%

2%

0%

2%

0%

19%

8%

2%

4%

0%

0%

0%

12%

6%

2%

9%

--

--

--

TSS

tons

43%

4%

3%

0%

2%

0%

7%

3%

0%

9%

0%

0%

0%

14%

10%

3%

2%

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

31%

5%

4%

1%

4%

0%

16%

6%

1%

6%

1%

0%

0%

9%

5%

2%

9%

--

--

--

FC

billion counts

43%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

4%

1%

3%

0%

0%

0%

34%

5%

5%

0%

--

--

--

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-105

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-67

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.056

0.004

0.003

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.034

0.015

0.004

0.007

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.022

0.010

0.004

0.017

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.016

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.004

0.001

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

2.537

0.392

0.330

0.064

0.306

0.002

1.295

0.504

0.079

0.468

0.113

0.032

0.000

0.750

0.433

0.146

0.719

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

--

--

10.444
0.005
0.006
0.001 0.033
0.016
1.043
1.068
0.361
0.686
0.004 0.004
0.000
8.245
1.168
1.331
0.063
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-106

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.5 Nor-X-Way Channel (Assessment Point MN-6)
Nor-X-Way is located in the north central portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This
tributary flows approximately four miles southwesterly to its confluence with the mainstem. The
Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area encompasses 4.2 square miles. The channel begins
in the village of Germantown about ½ mile south of the intersection of CTHs F and M. From
there it flows southeasterly into the city of Mequon and then flows south of STH 167. The
channel continues to flow southeasterly for about ½ mile and then changes direction and flows
southwesterly and crosses back into the village of Germantown and crosses Donges Bay Road
about ½ mile east of STH 145. From this point, the channel flows southwest and crosses into
Waukesha County at STH 145. The channel flows south for about ½ mile to the area‟s
downstream terminus at the WSOR rail spur located in the vicinity of the Menomonee Falls
Industrial Park. At this point, the Nor-X-Way channel enters the Middle Menomonee River
mainstem assessment point area (MN-9) (see page 156), approximately ½ mile northeast of USH
45/STH 74 interchange in the village of Menomonee Falls (Figure 4- 29).
The channel flows through a wide range of land types. Agricultural and recreational land uses
dominate in the north portion of the area. In this area, the riparian margin is wide and typically
exceeds 75 feet. In the south-central portion of the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area,
the channel predominantly flows through low density residential with some manufacturing land
uses. The width of the riparian margin is narrower in this area, and in some reaches the channel
is concrete-lined. Overall, the width of the riparian margin exceeds 75 feet along more than 60%
of the watercourse in this assessment point area. There is a dam located on a tributary to the
Nor-X-Way Channel west of STH 145 and less than ¾ mile north of the intersection of STH 145
and CTH Q.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the channel, the land use within the Nor-X-Way Channel
assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (44%). Recreation, natural areas, and open
space land uses make up nearly 26% of the total land use while low-density residential (defined
on following table) makes up nearly 12%. Transportation along with manufacturing and
industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses
compose the remaining 18%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water
quality data, approximately 12% of the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area is
impervious. TABLE 4-68 presents the land uses within the Nor-X-Way channel assessment
point area.

4-107

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-68

LAND USE IN THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

1.9

44.19%

0.5

11.98%

0.0

0.42%

Commercial

0.0

0.35%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

0.21%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.1

25.57%

Transportation

0.5

11.57%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.2

5.71%

Total

4.2

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.

4-108

!

!
!

Mequon Road

!

!

Main St.

Brown Deer Rd.

MN-6

!

!

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies

Land Use

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Commercial

0

³

850 1,700
Feet

Figure 4-29
MN-6 Land Use
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties are
located within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The municipalities include: the
city of Mequon, the village of Germantown, and the village of Menomonee Falls.
Approximately 71% of the 4.2 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown.
The city of Mequon and village of Menomonee Falls occupy the remaining 15% and 14%,
respectively. The extent of the civil divisions within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point
area is presented in TABLE 4-69.
TABLE 4-69
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Civil Division

Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Mequon

0.6

15.34%

Village of Germantown

3.0

70.76%

Village of Menomonee Falls

0.6

13.90%

Total

4.2

100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area are FC and TSS. The largest contributors to
Baseline FC loads are commercial (60%) and residential (20%) land uses. It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water
quality. The largest contributors for TSS are commercial land use (38%) and crops grown on
hydrologic group C soils (24%). 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 Nor-X-Way Channel 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 these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The
data suggest that nonpoint sources contribute to high concentrations of FC. This is supported by
the fact that FC concentrations tend to exceed the regulatory standard during high flows. The
concentrations of TSS were also assessed as poor and appear to be a function of nonpoint
sources. See Figure 4-30, Figure 4-31, and Figure 4-32. Note: the black line on Figure 4-30
represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of DO and TP were also performed.
During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed

4-110

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations tend to decline during the summer months, but
generally did not decline below the regulatory standard. The decline in DO could be exacerbated
by the concrete-lined channel within the assessment point area
The concentrations of TP were assessed as good. Nonpoint sources appear to contribute to
higher concentrations of TP within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The
concentration of TP decreased during very high flows, which may indicate that TP is diluted
during heavy storms. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-70. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Nor-X-Way assessment point
area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
Actual water quality data are available through the MMSD‟s H2O Info website. Conductivity
data are presented on Figure 4-33. The online conductivity data show very little impact on
conductivity for long periods of time – meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in
the assessment point area. Dissolved oxygen data are presented on Figure 4-34. The DO
exhibits similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than
15.0 mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate
very low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet
weather induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-35). The temperature
data are also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-36).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-71 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-72 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-73 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-111

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Nor-X-Way Channel (RI 834)
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 4-30

MN-6 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-31

MN-6 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Nor-X-Way Channel – Reach 834
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 4-32

MN-6 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-70
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Assessment
Point
MN-6
Nor-X-Way
Channel

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

3,261

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

72

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

208

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

200

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

1,962

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

83

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

113

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

114

Mean (mg/l)

10.0

Median (mg/l)

9.9

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.056

Median (mg/l)

0.038

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

Baseline
Condition

90

Mean (mg/l)

0.75

Median (mg/l)

0.70

Mean (mg/l)

16.0

Median (mg/l)

4.3

Mean (mg/l)

0.0037

Median (mg/l)

0.0011

4-115

FIGURE 4-33

MN-6 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-34

MN-6 MEASURED DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-35

MN-6 MEASURED TURBIDITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-36

MN-6 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-71

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

489.36

11.74

90.24

4.83

12.42

4.06

48.31

232.28

3.43

126.29

1.75

25.18

1.52

78.82

44.44

13.69

37.17

161.34

--

--

TSS

tons

191.65

14.98

119.92

5.04

2.02

1.76

3.33

23.42

0.25

78.49

0.33

6.89

0.48

25.19

23.15

4.81

1.75

0.14

--

--

BOD

pounds

21,976

391

3,116

187

549

347

731

2,960

31

8,052

132

999

60

2,646

1,908

527

903

450

--

--

FC

billion counts

187

32,327

72

2,004

126

80,677

14,091

13,240

84

0

--

--

248,649
66
850
39
80
8,360
885
9,929
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-72
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

35%

1%

7%

0%

1%

0%

3%

17%

0%

9%

0%

2%

0%

6%

3%

1%

3%

12%

--

--

TSS

38%

3%

24%

1%

0%

0%

1%

5%

0%

16%

0%

1%

0%

5%

5%

1%

0%

0%

--

--

BOD

48%

1%

7%

0%

1%

1%

2%

6%

0%

18%

0%

2%

0%

6%

4%

1%

2%

1%

--

--

FC
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
8%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

20%

3%

3%

0%

0%

--

--

Loads

4-120

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-73

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.174

0.004

0.032

0.002

0.004

0.001

0.017

0.083

0.001

0.045

0.001

0.009

0.001

0.028

0.016

0.005

0.013

0.057

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.068

0.005

0.043

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.008

0.000

0.028

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.009

0.008

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

7.814

0.139

1.108

0.067

0.195

0.123

0.260

1.052

0.011

2.863

0.047

0.355

0.021

0.941

0.678

0.187

0.321

0.160

--

--

billion counts/acre

88.406

0.024

0.302

0.014

0.028

2.972

0.315

3.530

0.066

11.494

0.025

0.713

0.045

28.684

5.010

4.707

0.030

0.000

--

--

FC

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-121

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Nor-X-Way Channel 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 good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or
snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and habitat regime.
There is one assessed plant community within the Nor-X-Way assessment point area. The
quality of this plant community was assessed as fairly good. 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. During the warm weather months, the
minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See 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 34%
reduction from Baseline FC loads and a 28% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived
from the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area
are presented in TABLE 4-74. 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 4-75 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for MN-6. TABLE 4-76 presents the
Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load. TABLE 4-77 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis
Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there would be an
improvement in the assessment of TSS due to the 28% reduction in TSS loads. The assessment
would change from poor to very good. However, despite the 34% reduction in FC loading, there
wouldn‟t be any appreciable improvement in the assessment of FC. The assessments of FC
(annual measure) and FC (swimming season) would remain poor and moderate, respectively.
Water quality modeling also indicates that the assessments of TP and DO would remain the
same. The assessment of TP would remain as good. During the warm weather months, the
4-122

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding
Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the
assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory
standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at
MN-6 would deteriorate from good to moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-74
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-6)
Assessment
Point
MN-6
Nor-X-Way
Channel

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

72

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

118

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

250

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

875

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

83

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

54

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

141

Mean (mg/l)

9.9

Median (mg/l)

9.7

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.055

Median (mg/l)

0.036
89

Mean (mg/l)

0.49

Median (mg/l)

0.44

Mean (mg/l)

10.6

Median (mg/l)
Copper

2,124

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

3.1

Mean (mg/l)

0.0035

Median (mg/l)

0.0008

4-123

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-75

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

474.48

0.18

2.46

--

13.50

6.15

49.50

266.60

5.83

188.90

0.88

3.71

1.28

113.79

38.70

TSS

tons

163.25

0.17

2.38

--

2.20

2.35

3.16

24.97

0.39

104.64

0.16

0.92

0.36

32.19

17.97

BOD

pounds

20,701

11

164

--

597

498

779

3,550

56

11,545

84

186

64

3,791

1,592

FC

billion counts

143,730

0

4

--

87

7,479

613

7,713

216

29,440

5

37

14

68,498

7,471

SSOs

Government /
Institution

pounds

CSOs

Forest

TP

Industrial

Crop (D)

Units

Wetland

Crop (C)

Loads

Ultra Low

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

13.09

41.78

161.34

--

--

4.01

1.97

0.14

--

--

507

1,015

450

--

--

7,185

94

0

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-76
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

34%

0%

0%

--

1%

0%

4%

19%

0%

14%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

1%

3%

12%

--

--

TSS

tons

45%

0%

1%

--

1%

1%

1%

7%

0%

29%

0%

0%

0%

9%

5%

1%

1%

0%

--

--

BOD

pounds

45%

0%

0%

--

1%

1%

2%

8%

0%

25%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

1%

2%

1%

--

--

FC

billion counts

53%

0%

0%

--

0%

3%

0%

3%

0%

11%

0%

0%

0%

25%

3%

3%

0%

0%

--

--

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-124

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-77

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.161

0.000

0.001

--

0.005

0.002

0.018

0.095

0.002

0.067

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.038

0.014

0.004

0.015

0.057

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.058

0.000

0.001

--

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.009

0.000

0.037

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.011

0.006

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

7.360

0.004

0.058

--

0.212

0.177

0.277

1.262

0.020

4.105

0.030

0.066

0.000

1.348

0.566

0.180

0.361

0.160

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

--

--

49.740
0.000
0.001
-0.031
2.646
0.218 2.742
0.077
10.467
0.002
0.013
0.005
24.019
2.656
2.474
0.033
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-125

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.6 Lilly Creek (Assessment Point MN-7)
Lilly Creek is located in the western portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary
flows northerly for about 3 miles before reaching its confluence with the Menomonee River.
The Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) encompasses about 5.7 square miles. The creek
begins in Willowood Park on the south side of the village of Menomonee Falls, about a half mile
southeast of the intersection of CTHs YY and VV. Glass-Glick Woods, a critical species habitat
area, is about ½ mile west of the headwaters. From this point, the creek flows northerly across
CTY VV, the Union Pacific rail line, Mill Road and Good Hope Road. Once the creek crosses
Good Hope Road, it flows northerly across Appleton Avenue and enters Rivers Edge Park and
the North Hills Country Club on the east side of the village of Menomonee Falls. At the park,
the creek flows into the Upper Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-9), see
page 156.
Lilly Creek and its tributaries predominantly flow through low density residential areas. The
widths of the riparian margin are relatively narrow. Only about 30% of stream within the Lilly
Creek assessment point area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Lilly Creek
assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Lilly Creek assessment point
area (MN-7) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (43%).
Transportation land use makes up nearly 19% of the total land use while recreation, natural
areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 17% of the Lilly Creek assessment point area
(MN-7). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential,
institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 21%. Based
on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 20% of the
Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) is impervious. TABLE 4-78 presents the land uses
within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (Figure 4-37).

4-126

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-78

LAND USE IN THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.7

12.06%

2.5

43.36%

0.0

1.14%

Commercial

0.1

1.51%

Institutional & Governmental

0.1

1.29%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.0

17.18%

Transportation

1.0

18.63%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.3

4.83%

Total

5.7

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.

4-127

!

Main St.
!

!

MN-7

!

!

!
!

Capitol Dr.

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies

Land Use

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Commercial

0

³

800 1,600
Feet

Figure 4-37
MN-7 Land Use
3,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Only one municipality within Waukesha County is located within the Lilly Creek assessment
point area (MN-7). The entire 5.7 square mile area is located within the village of Menomonee
Falls (TABLE 4-79).
TABLE 4-79
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

Village of Menomonee Falls

5.7

100.00%

Total

5.7

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 Lilly Creek are DO, FC and TSS. Within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7),
the largest contributors to current Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (40%) and grass
grown on hydrologic group C soils (28%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (52%)
and residential (28%) land uses. Commercial (56%) and industrial (15%) land uses are the
predominant contributors to TSS.
It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly
affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the area reasonably
characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of
“unknown sources” in this assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The
measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceeded the
regulatory standard about 75% of the time. The increases in FC concentrations during high
flows suggest that FC concentrations within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) are
primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The data also indicate that FC concentrations tend to
unexpectedly increase during late summer months. The source of FC responsible for this
increase is not readily apparent from the data. See Figure 4-38, Figure 4-39, and Figure 4-40.
Note: the black line on Figure 4-38 represents the cumulative number of days at various
concentrations throughout the year.
The detailed analysis of TP data indicated that TP concentrations were assessed as good and TSS
concentrations were assessed as poor and that both parameters are primarily attributed to
nonpoint sources within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). The relationship
between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. The
potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank
erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate
and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details

4-129

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). It is normal for DO
concentrations to decline during the summer due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warm
water; however, the concentrations of DO within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7)
during colder months decline more than would be expected. This could be a function of
increased BOD, including in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO
also declined during low flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles
within Lilly Creek. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on the annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-80. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Lilly Creek assessment point area
(MN-7). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-81 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-82 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-83 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-130

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Lilly Creek (RI 841)
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 4-38

MN-7 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-39

MN-7 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Lilly Creek – Reach 841
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 4-40

MN-7 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-80

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-7
Lilly Creek

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

2,427

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

69

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

359

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

89

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

1,416

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

81

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

265

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

38

Mean (mg/l)

9.3

Median (mg/l)

9.3

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

92

Mean (mg/l)

0.063

Median (mg/l)

0.040

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

Baseline
Condition

85

Mean (mg/l)

0.74

Median (mg/l)

0.67

Mean (mg/l)

19.0

Median (mg/l)

7.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0051

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

4-134

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-81

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

87.06

1.25

4.32

--

135.56

--

19.34

34.12

--

--

--

2.34

3.33

20.93

0.14

54.11

0.26

0.73

--

43.33

--

6.79

1.03

--

--

--

462

1,481

6,390

43

5,551

145

237

--

4,552

--

744

907

--

--

--

104,848
49
520
5
82
4,455
1,429
16,462
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

213

8,914

74

379

--

55,503

--

7,481

136

--

--

--

Forest

3.84

Crop (D)

366.72

Crop (C)

67.58

Crop (B)

5.41

Commercial

Grass (B)

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

515.87

4.72

43.17

0.57

5.17

TSS

tons

202.03

2.33

21.58

0.22

0.71

BOD

pounds

23,167

242

2,360

41

316

FC

billion counts

TABLE 4-82
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

40%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

5%

28%

0%

7%

0%

0%

--

10%

--

1%

3%

--

--

--

TSS

56%

1%

6%

0%

0%

1%

1%

6%

0%

15%

0%

0%

--

12%

--

2%

0%

--

--

--

BOD

50%

1%

5%

0%

1%

1%

3%

14%

0%

12%

0%

1%

--

10%

--

2%

2%

--

--

--

FC
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
8%
0%
4%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

28%

--

4%

0%

--

--

--

Loads

4-135

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-83

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.142

0.001

0.012

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.019

0.101

0.001

0.024

0.000

0.001

--

0.037

--

0.005

0.009

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.056

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.015

0.000

0.000

--

0.012

--

0.002

0.000

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

6.364

0.067

0.648

0.011

0.087

0.127

0.407

1.755

0.012

1.525

0.040

0.065

--

1.250

--

0.204

0.249

--

--

--

FC
billion counts/acre
28.804 0.013 0.143 0.001 0.023 1.224
0.393
4.523
0.059
2.449
0.020 0.104
-15.248
-2.055
0.037
--Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-136

--

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) 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. This assessment of flashiness suggests
that this reach experiences somewhat normal increases and decreases in stream flow following
wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow somewhat supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There are two assessed plant communities located in the Lilly Creek
assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities range from poor to
fair. 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 moderate and the maximum DO concentrations
were assessed as very good. See 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 for Baseline TP loads, a 48% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 31% reduction
in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7).
Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC load
in the Lilly Creek assessment point area.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data at the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) are
presented in TABLE 4-84. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality
standards within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). In the table, the level of
compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed
assessment of the given parameter discussed 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 4-85 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-86 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-87 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 48% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and
remain moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of TP would also remain
unchanged as good. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement
of the assessment of TSS from poor to very good. During the warm weather months, the
minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as moderate and the maximum DO
concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality
assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC
Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the
4-137

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldn‟t be any change in the assessment of flashiness
within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) (moderate). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for
more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-84
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment
Point
MN-7
Lilly Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

72

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

190

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

210

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

547

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

84

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

132

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

115

Mean (mg/l)

9.2

Median (mg/l)

9.2

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

92

Mean (mg/l)

0.055

Median (mg/l)

0.037
87

Mean (mg/l)

0.54

Median (mg/l)

0.49

Mean (mg/l)

12.9

Median (mg/l)
Copper

1,211

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

5.2

Mean (mg/l)

0.0038

Median (mg/l)

0.0009

4-138

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-85

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)

--

0.53

BOD

pounds

--

--

238

FC

billion counts

52,481

--

--

--

62

SSOs

--

--

CSOs

--

18,976

Industrial

147.92

Wetland

tons

Ultra Low

TSS

Transportation

3.89

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

--

Pasture (B)

448.72

Industrial

Forest

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

6.51

57.99

308.80

3.12

74.43

--

--

--

128.31

--

16.65

32.13

--

--

--

2.36

2.53

15.68

0.10

39.35

--

--

--

34.44

--

4.90

0.97

--

--

--

518

1,291

5,475

36

4,464

--

--

--

4,094

--

607

854

--

--

--

3,005

818

9,266

116

4,341

--

--

--

29,712

--

3,654

128

--

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-86
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

42%

--

--

--

0%

1%

5%

29%

0%

7%

--

--

--

12%

--

2%

3%

--

--

--

TSS

tons

59%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

6%

0%

16%

--

--

--

14%

--

2%

0%

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

52%

--

--

--

1%

1%

4%

15%

0%

12%

--

--

--

11%

--

2%

2%

--

--

--

FC

billion counts

51%

--

--

--

0%

3%

1%

9%

0%

4%

--

--

--

29%

--

4%

0%

--

--

--

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-139

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-87

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.121

--

--

--

0.001

0.002

0.016

0.085

0.001

0.020

--

--

--

0.034

--

0.004

0.009

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.041

--

--

--

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.011

--

--

--

0.009

--

0.001

0.000

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

5.213

--

--

--

0.065

0.142

0.355

1.504

0.010

1.226

--

--

--

1.125

--

0.167

0.234

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

14.175
---0.017
0.821
0.225
2.546
0.032
1.192
---8.064
-0.990
0.035
---Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-140

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.7 Butler Ditch (Assessment Point MN-8)
Butler Ditch is located in the western portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary
flows southerly for about 1.5 miles, easterly for about one mile and then northerly for about 1.5
miles before its confluence with the Menomonee River. The Butler Ditch assessment point area
(MN-8) is located immediately south of the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) and
encompasses about 5.7 square miles. Three main tributaries converge to form the Butler Ditch.
Two tributaries begin south of Capital Drive, including one that begins in Arrowhead Lake Park
in the city of Brookfield and one that begins about a mile south of the Wisconsin Memorial Park
Cemetery and flows northerly through Lamplighter Park. The third tributary begins in
Willowood Park and flows southerly through the Theatre Swamp then changes direction just
north of Capital Drive and flows easterly. All three tributaries converge in the vicinity of Lilly
Heights Park, located adjacent to the Elmbrook School Administrative building on the east side
of the city of Brookfield. From this point, Butler Ditch flows northerly across CTH K into the
village of Menomonee Falls Business Park. Once Butler Ditch reaches Menomonee Falls, it
flows northeasterly and enters the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area on
the east side of the village of Butler, see page 156.
In general, Butler Ditch flows through low-density residential areas in a predominantly natural
channel. The width of the riparian margin varies and ranges from greater than 75 feet to less
than 25 feet. Overall, about 46% of the stream in this assessment point area has a riparian
margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Butler Ditch assessment point area does not contain any known
dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. As noted above, the land use within the Butler
Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on
following table) (56%). Transportation land use makes up nearly 20% of the total land use while
recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 13% of the total land use
within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). Agriculture along with manufacturing
and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses
compose the remaining 11%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water
quality data, approximately 21% of the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is
impervious. TABLE 4-88 presents the land uses within the Butler Ditch assessment point area
(Figure 4-41).

4-141

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-88

LAND USE IN THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.1

1.99%

3.2

55.92%

0.1

2.08%

Commercial

0.1

1.90%

Institutional & Governmental

0.2

2.79%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.7

12.85%

Transportation

1.1

19.79%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.2

2.68%

Total

5.7

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.

4-142

!

MN-8

!

!
!

Capitol Dr.

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
BB R
RO
OO
O KK FF II EE LL D
D

!

Bluemound Rd.

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Land Use

Waterbodies

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Water

Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

0

³

800 1,600
Feet

Figure 4-41
MN-8 Land Use
3,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Butler Ditch
assessment point area (MN-8). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the village of
Butler, and the village of Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 5.7 square mile area is
located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Menomonee Falls occupies just under 30%
of the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). The village of Butler occupies less than 1%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is
presented in TABLE 4-89.
TABLE 4-89
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point Area
within Civil Division

City of Brookfield

4.0

70.09%

Village of Butler

0.0

0.26%

Village of Menomonee Falls

1.7

29.65%

Total

5.7

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 within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the
area, the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are grass grown on hydrologic group C soils
(42%) and commercial land use (35%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (48%)
and residential (30%) land uses. Commercial (64%) and residential (16%) land uses are the
largest contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant
loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses
in the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) reasonably characterize the resulting FC
modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of “unknown sources” in this
assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The
measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceeded the
regulatory standard. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC
concentrations within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) are primarily attributed to
nonpoint sources. The data also indicate that FC concentrations tend to unexpectedly increase
during late summer months. The source of FC responsible for this increase is not readily
apparent from the data. See Figure 4-42, Figure 4-43, and Figure 4-44. Note: the black line on
Figure 4-42 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
was moderate and assessment of TSS concentrations was poor. The data suggest that both of
these parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources within the Butler Ditch assessment
4-144

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

point area (MN-8). The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be
associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that
carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on DO data.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and
the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The range of DO concentrations
is wider than would normally be expected. This could be a function of increased BOD, including
in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO also declined during low
flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within the Butler Ditch
assessment point area (MN-8). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-90. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Butler Ditch assessment point
area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-91 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-92 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-93 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-145

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Butler Ditch (RI 855)
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 4-42

MN-8 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-43

MN-8 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Butler Ditch – Reach 855
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 4-44

MN-8 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-90

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment
Point
MN-8
Butler Ditch

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

2,425

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

64

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

424

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

82

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

1,325

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

79

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

286

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

31

Mean (mg/l)

9.6

Median (mg/l)

9.3

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

93

Mean (mg/l)

0.065

Median (mg/l)

0.042

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

Baseline
Condition

85

Mean (mg/l)

0.68

Median (mg/l)

0.62

Mean (mg/l)

17.5

Median (mg/l)

7.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0046

Median (mg/l)

0.0014

4-149

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-91

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)

109

FC

billion counts

43.61

0.15

2.46

--

166.15

--

1.20

2.95

28.45

0.05

28.07

0.03

0.41

--

55.17

--

227

1,334

9,276

17

2,780

18

132

--

5,579

--

101

4,467

9

209

--

68,996

--

110,418
14
37
-28
2,186
1,377
29,568
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

--

1.83

CSOs

0.25

174

654.11

Industrial

--

65

66.41

Wetland

1.60

24,388

2.65

Ultra Low

0.54

pounds

Transportation

222.44

BOD

Residential

1.69

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

3.19

Pasture (B)

1.13

tons

Industrial

Forest

543.05

TSS

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

17.16

43.42

--

--

5.55

6.27

1.17

--

--

0.16

660

1,178

--

--

78

6,640

162

--

--

6,070

TABLE 4-92
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

35%

0%

0%

--

0%

0%

4%

42%

0%

3%

0%

0%

--

11%

--

1%

3%

--

--

0%

TSS

64%

0%

0%

--

0%

0%

1%

8%

0%

8%

0%

0%

--

16%

--

2%

0%

--

--

0%

BOD

53%

0%

0%

--

0%

0%

3%

20%

0%

6%

0%

0%

--

12%

--

1%

3%

--

--

0%

FC
48%
0%
0%
-0%
1%
1%
13%
0%
2%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

30%

--

3%

0%

--

--

3%

Loads

4-150

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-93

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.151

0.000

0.001

--

0.000

0.001

0.018

0.181

0.001

0.012

0.000

0.001

--

0.046

--

0.005

0.012

--

--

0.002

TSS

tons/acre

0.062

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.008

0.000

0.008

0.000

0.000

--

0.015

--

0.002

0.000

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.765

0.018

0.048

--

0.030

0.063

0.370

2.573

0.005

0.771

0.005

0.037

--

1.548

--

0.183

0.327

--

--

0.022

FC

billion counts/acre

30.629

0.004

0.010

--

0.008

0.606

0.382

8.202

0.028

1.239

0.002

0.058

--

19.139

--

1.842

0.045

--

--

1.684

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-151

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) 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. This assessment of flashiness suggests
that this reach experiences somewhat normal increases and decreases in stream flow following
wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow somewhat supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There is one assessed plant community within the Butler Ditch
assessment point area. The quality of this plant community was assessed as good. 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. During the
warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the
maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See 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 for Baseline TP loads, a 44% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 27% reduction
in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8).
Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant “unknown source” FC load
in the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8).
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-94. This table also
reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the 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 4-95 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-96 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-97 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 44% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and moderate
for the swimming season measures within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). In
contrast, the reduction in TP and TSS loading would result in the improvement of the
assessments of TP from moderate to good and TSS from poor to very good. During the warm
weather months, the minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as good and the
maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding Year 2020
water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments
in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards.
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldn‟t be any change in the
assessment of flashiness within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) (moderate). See
4-152

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020
conditions.
TABLE 4-94
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment
Point
MN-8
Butler Ditch

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

1,297

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

68

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

228

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

178

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

700

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

82

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

152

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

98

Mean (mg/l)

9.6

Median (mg/l)

9.3

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

93

Mean (mg/l)

0.057

Median (mg/l)

0.038

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

Year 2020
Condition

87

Mean (mg/l)

0.59

Median (mg/l)

0.53

Mean (mg/l)

12.6

Median (mg/l)

5.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0035

Median (mg/l)

0.0010

4-153

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-95

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)

--

0.23

BOD

pounds

--

--

90

FC

billion counts

59,897

--

--

--

21

28.72

--

--

--

153.01

--

1.66

2.25

20.67

0.04

15.98

--

--

--

42.39

--

350

1,125

7,461

13

1,732

--

--

--

5,056

--

2,157

766

15,697

51

1,713

--

--

--

38,133

--

SSOs

--

--

1.35

CSOs

--

20,548

506.69

Industrial

165.02

54.12

Wetland

tons

4.40

Ultra Low

TSS

Transportation

1.27

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

--

Pasture (B)

479.30

Industrial

Forest

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

15.70

41.60

--

--

5.08

4.77

1.65

--

--

0.15

587

1,573

--

--

72

3,663

156

--

--

5,553

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-96
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

37%

--

--

--

0%

0%

4%

39%

0%

2%

--

--

--

12%

--

1%

3%

--

--

0%

TSS

tons

65%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

8%

0%

6%

--

--

--

17%

--

2%

1%

--

--

0%

BOD

pounds

53%

--

--

--

0%

1%

3%

19%

0%

4%

--

--

--

13%

--

2%

4%

--

--

0%

FC

billion counts

47%

--

--

--

0%

2%

1%

12%

0%

1%

--

--

--

30%

--

3%

0%

--

--

4%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-154

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-97

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.127

--

--

--

0.000

0.001

0.015

0.141

0.000

0.008

--

--

--

0.040

--

0.004

0.012

--

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.046

--

--

--

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.004

--

--

--

0.012

--

0.001

0.000

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

5.700

--

--

--

0.025

0.097

0.312

2.070

0.004

0.481

--

--

--

1.402

--

0.163

0.436

--

--

0.020

FC

billion counts/acre

15.806
---0.006
0.591
0.213
4.354
0.014
0.475
---10.198
-0.976
0.043
--0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-155

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.8 Middle Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-9 and MN-12)
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem is located in the central portion of the Menomonee
River watershed. This area of the watershed is represented by assessment point areas MN-9 and
MN-12. Assessment point area MN-9‟s encompasses 12.8 square miles and extends downstream
to a point that is located at the confluence with Butler Ditch. This downstream point is
approximately located on the western boundary of the village of Butler. Assessment point MN9‟s assessment point area also includes a three mile segment of the Nor-X-Way channel.
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem begins in northeastern Waukesha and northwestern
Milwaukee counties, at about CTH Q. As noted earlier, the Middle Menomonee River is
downstream of the northern reach of the Nor-X-Way Channel and the Upper Menomonee River
mainstem. The mainstem flows southeasterly through the village of Menomonee Falls, along the
Menomonee River Parkway, and through Lime Kiln Park, which is located south of Main Street.
From this point, the mainstem flows easterly towards Rotary Park and its confluence with the
Nor-X-Way Channel located ¼ mile south of STH 74 interchange on USH 41/45. Upstream of
the confluence, the mainstem passes about one mile northeast of the Menomonee Falls Tamarack
Preserve. Downstream of the confluence, the mainstem changes direction and flows southeast
past the Menomonee Falls High School, along the west side of Rivers Edge Park and through the
North Hills Country Club. From this point, it flows easterly into Milwaukee County and
southerly along the county line through Harbinger Woods, south of Good Hope Road, and
through the Menomonee River Swamp-North before changing direction and flowing back into
Waukesha County. At CTH VV, in the vicinity of the village of Butler, the river flows into the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12), see following section.
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem flows through recreation, natural areas, and open space
areas to the north and mostly low density residential with some industrial land uses to the south.
In general, the mainstem flows through a natural channel within the Menomonee River Parkway.
In the vicinity of STH 74, there is a ½ mile reach where the channel bottom is bedrock. The
width of the riparian margins varies, with about 40% exceeding 75 feet. The Middle
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains three known dams, drop structures,
or other obstructions.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land uses within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-9) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space
(38%). Low-density residential (defined on following table) land use makes up nearly 21% of
the total land use while transportation makes up nearly 20% of the total land use. Agriculture
along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, commercial, and institutional
and governmental land uses compose the remaining 21% (Figure 4-45). Based on an analysis of
land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 20% of the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is impervious. TABLE 4-98 presents the land
uses within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).

4-156

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-98
LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

1.1

8.45%

2.7

20.84%

0.4

2.83%

Commercial

0.3

2.74%

Institutional & Governmental

0.2

1.79%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

4.9

38.37%

Transportation

2.6

20.50%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.6

4.48%

Total

12.8

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.

4-157

Ap
p

le

to
n
Av
.
!

Main St.
!

!

A
pp
le
n
to
A
v.

!

!

!

MN-9

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Land Use

Waterbodies

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Water

Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

0

³

800 1,600
Feet

!

Figure 4-45
MN-9 Land Use
3,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties
are located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). The
municipalities include: the cities of Mequon and Milwaukee, and the villages of Butler,
Germantown, and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 12.8 square mile assessment
point area is located within the village of Menomonee Falls. The city of Milwaukee occupies
nearly 26% of the area. The village of Germantown, the city of Mequon, and the village of
Butler occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is presented in TABLE 4-99.
TABLE 4-99
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Civil Division

Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Mequon

0.1

1.11%

City of Milwaukee

3.3

25.76%

Village of Butler

0.1

0.63%

Village of Germantown

0.3

2.01%

Village of Menomonee Falls

9.0

70.49%

Total

12.8

100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-9), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land
use (39%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (20%). The largest contributors of FC
loads are commercial (56%) and residential (17%) land uses. Commercial (48%) and
transportation (14%) land uses are the largest contributors of loads of TSS. It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water
quality.
The Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is composed of multiple modeling
areas, some of these areas are not affected by “unknown sources.” However, with other
modeling areas, 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 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

4-159

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

presented in Appendix 4C. See Figure 4-46, Figure 4-47, and Figure 4-48. Note: the black line
on Figure 4-46 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout
the year. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for
the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were
fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as poor and are greatest at high and low flows. This may indicate the presence of a background
source that is particularly noticeable during low flows, potentially from non-contact cooling
water. The elevated concentrations of TP at high flows suggest the prevalence of nonpoint
sources during high flows. The concentrations of TSS were also characterized as poor. The data
suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may
come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended
stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, DO was also assessed in detail. During the warm weather
months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat
section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As
expected, DO concentrations declined during the summer months, but the lower portions of the
ranges declined more than would be expected during the summer. This may indicate excess
organic matter and BOD within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-100. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-9). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are not available. In other parts of the watershed, chloride is higher in March –
probably a residual from road salt. As this is not the case here, it is possible that chloride may
not be problematic at this site. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter
months; however, the data suggest that high flows may dilute the chloride concentration (Figure
4-49).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-101 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,

4-160

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

and TABLE 4-103 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-8 are upstream of MN-9. The Baseline cumulative loads, including
loads from MN-1 through MN-8, are estimated. TABLE 4-104 presents the Baseline cumulative
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-105 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-106 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a
per acre basis.

4-161

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ 127th Street Ext (RI 21)
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

MN-9 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-47

MN-9 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

127th Street Ext. (RI-21) – Reach 848
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 4-48

MN-9 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-100

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Assessment
Point
MN-9
Middle
Menomonee River
Mainstem, Downstream of Butler
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)

57

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

489

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

72

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

76

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

229

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

51

Mean (mg/l)

10.8

Median (mg/l)

11

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

99

Mean (mg/l)

0.101

Median (mg/l)

0.061

Mean (mg/l)

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

Copper

1,571

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

Median (mg/l)
Total Suspended Solids

2,828

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

69
1.08
1
15.7
6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0052

Median (mg/l)

0.0019

4-165

127th Street Ext. (RI-21) – Reach 848
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

MN-9 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-101

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation
224.35

5.35

9.62

53.27

0.81

84.15

0.34

4.98

0.33

49.22

110.19

1,262

2,492

8,753

168

8,791

155

925

50

5,965

9,629

FC billion counts 433,969
37
452
3
107
20,045
2,764
26,451
889
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

33,967

71

1,656

101

131,163

62,617

5.19

46.22

0.21

15.79

TSS

tons

382.32

4.13

58.42

0.08

2.58

BOD

pounds

48,807

265

1,778

20

781

SSOs

Pasture (C)

177.66

1086.81

CSOs

Pasture (B)

1.13

pounds

Industrial

Industrial

19.52

Units

TP

Wetland

Grass (D)

1.66

Loads

Ultra Low

Grass (C)

137.88

Forest

13.25

Crop (D)

561.29

Crop (C)

140.00

Crop (B)

14.77

Commercial

Grass (B)

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Nonpoint Source

64.90

138.09

166.26

--

2.84

22.42

6.20

0.09

--

0.08

2,497

4,149

124

--

40

60,632

375

0

--

3,101

TABLE 4-102
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

39%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

5%

20%

0%

5%

0%

1%

0%

6%

8%

2%

5%

6%

--

0%

TSS

48%

1%

7%

0%

0%

1%

1%

7%

0%

11%

0%

1%

0%

6%

14%

3%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

50%

0%

2%

0%

1%

1%

3%

9%

0%

9%

0%

1%

0%

6%

10%

3%

4%

0%

--

0%

FC
56%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
4%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

17%

8%

8%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

4-167

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-103

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.144

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.019

0.074

0.002

0.018

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.024

0.030

0.009

0.018

0.022

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.051

0.001

0.008

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.007

0.000

0.011

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.007

0.015

0.003

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.460

0.035

0.235

0.003

0.103

0.167

0.330

1.158

0.022

1.164

0.021

0.122

0.007

0.789

1.274

0.330

0.549

0.016

--

0.005

FC

billion counts/acre

57.437

0.005

0.060

0.000

0.014

2.653

0.366

3.501

0.118

4.496

0.009

0.219

0.013

17.360

8.288

8.025

0.050

0.000

--

0.410

Loads

Units

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-104
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)

844.64

389.81

226.64

SSOs

12.47

CSOs

34.88 100.76

Industrial

559.09

Wetland

602.66 2129.81 92.11

Ultra Low

47.59

Transportation

64.35

Residential

33.56

Pasture (D)

443.37

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

246.79

Point Source
Pasture (B)

Forest

3892.46

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

614.59

1315.78

--

9.81

TSS

tons

1350.24

112.41

305.43

14.82

10.48

17.04

38.11

147.72

4.14

317.45

8.44

22.15

2.31

238.05

178.27

68.15

24.65

1.83

--

0.28

BOD

pounds

174,803

17,997

30,808

3,671

4,141

4,068

15,705

36,316

1,558

35,648

4,376

6,113

799

28,358

16,727

8,718

22,624

7,335

--

138

FC

billion
counts

1,152,817

2,058

5,626

449

550

52,044

14,500 103,459 7,533

96,453

1,657

9,464

1,418

452,545

92,015

131,025

2,111

0

--

10,722

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-168

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-105

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

33%

2%

4%

0%

1%

0%

5%

18%

1%

5%

0%

1%

0%

7%

3%

2%

5%

11%

--

0%

TSS

tons

47%

4%

11%

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

11%

0%

1%

0%

8%

6%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

42%

4%

7%

1%

1%

1%

4%

9%

0%

8%

1%

1%

0%

7%

4%

2%

5%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion
counts

54%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

1%

5%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

21%

4%

6%

0%

0%

--

1%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-106
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.106

0.007

0.012

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.016

0.058

0.003

0.015

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.023

0.011

0.006

0.017

0.036

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.037

0.003

0.008

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.009

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.006

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

4.772

0.491

0.841

0.100

0.113

0.111

0.429

0.991

0.043

0.973

0.119

0.167

0.022

0.774

0.457

0.238

0.618

0.200

--

0.004

FC

billion
counts/acre

31.471

0.056

0.154

0.012

0.015

1.421

0.396

2.824

0.206

2.633

0.045

0.258

0.039

12.354

2.512

3.577

0.058

0.000

--

0.293

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-169

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) 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 very good. This assessment of
flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow
following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There are nine assessed plant communities located within the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities
range from poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessments rating, 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 and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See
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 6%
reduction for Baseline TP loads, a 35% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 16% reduction
in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-107. This table also
reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance
for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the
given parameter discussed 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. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-8 are upstream of the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). 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 35% reduction in FC loading and the 6% reduction in TP loading, water
quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain
poor for the annual and moderate during the swimming season within the Middle Menomonee
4-170

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

River assessment point area (MN-9). The assessment of TP would remain poor. In contrast, the
reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor
to very good. During the warm weather months, the assessments of the minimum and maximum
DO concentrations would remain as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality
assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC
Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the
Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-9) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-107
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Assessment
Point
MN-9
Middle Mainstem
Menomonee
River, Downstream of Butler
Ditch

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

59

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

329

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

149

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

783

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

78

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

131

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

113

Mean (mg/l)

10.8

Median (mg/l)

11.0

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

99

Mean (mg/l)

0.098

Median (mg/l)

0.063

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

1,865

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

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

Year 2020
Condition

68

Mean (mg/l)

0.85

Median (mg/l)

0.79

Mean (mg/l)

12.9

Median (mg/l)

5.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0047

Median (mg/l)

0.0019

4-171

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-108

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)

11.89

195.69

0.10

3.67

--

190.84

191.54

64.04

130.08 166.26

SSOs

457.29

CSOs

Ultra Low

110.67

Industrial

Transportation

17.87

Wetland

Residential

13.82

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

0.89

Pasture (B)

--

Industrial

1,104.22

Grass (D)

Forest

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (B)

Crop (C)

Units

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Crop (B)

Loads

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

--

1.42

TSS

tons

342.02

--

0.30

--

2.26

5.71

7.27

41.49

0.71

107.44

0.02

0.91

--

46.78

85.57

18.55

5.83

0.09

--

0.04

BOD

pounds

48,862

--

133

--

695

1,444

2,201

8,101

168

11,986

10

186

--

6,608

7,947

2,457

3,943

124

--

20

FC

billion counts

282,163

--

2

--

94

15,929

1,744

17,344

706

30,046

1

37

--

90,096

34,273

33,754

356

0

--

1,551

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-109
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

42%

--

0%

--

1%

1%

4%

17%

0%

7%

0%

0%

--

7%

7%

2%

5%

6%

--

0%

TSS

tons

51%

--

0%

--

0%

1%

1%

6%

0%

16%

0%

0%

--

7%

13%

3%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

51%

--

0%

--

1%

2%

2%

9%

0%

13%

0%

0%

--

7%

8%

3%

4%

0%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

56%

--

0%

--

0%

3%

0%

3%

0%

6%

0%

0%

--

18%

7%

7%

0%

0%

--

0%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-172

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-110

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.136

--

0.000

--

0.002

0.002

0.015

0.061

0.002

0.026

0.000

0.000

--

0.023

0.025

0.008

0.017

0.022

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.045

--

0.000

--

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.014

0.000

0.000

--

0.006

0.011

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.467

--

0.018

--

0.092

0.191

0.291

1.072

0.022

1.586

0.001

0.025

--

0.875

1.052

0.325

0.522

0.016

--

0.003

FC

billion
counts/acre

36.023

--

0.000

--

0.012

2.073

0.231

2.296

0.093

3.977

0.000

0.005

--

11.592

4.536

4.345

0.047

0.000

--

0.000

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-111
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)

980.64

346.64

227.68

SSOs

2.74

CSOs

22.45

Industrial

8.80

Wetland

Ultra Low

678.84

Transportation

99.27

Residential

1,944.01

Pasture (D)

638.86

Pasture (C)

59.88

Pasture (B)

76.50

Industrial

9.56

Grass (D)

100.60

Point Source

Grass (C)

83.38

Grass (B)

3,840.62

Government /
Institution

pounds

Forest

Units

TP

Crop (D)

Crop (B)

Loads

Crop (C)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

638.58

1,315.78

--

6.97

TSS

tons

1,180.06

29.67

35.99

2.60

12.64

19.41

43.13

135.66

4.90

353.17

2.11

4.53

0.57

243.49

146.78

60.56

26.16

1.83

--

0.20

BOD

pounds

169,691

10,190

14,428

2,022

5,213

4,885

19,889

38,499

1,936

42,211

1,388

1,858

195

33,178

14,587

8,823

24,208

7,335

--

98

FC

billion
counts

787,722

110

223

21

645

45,896

15,265

78,860

8,471

83,330

52

277

36

369,982

55,415

88,282

2,204

0

--

7,620

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-173

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-112

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

35%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

6%

18%

1%

6%

0%

0%

0%

9%

3%

2%

6%

12%

--

0%

TSS

tons

51%

1%

2%

0%

1%

1%

2%

6%

0%

15%

0%

0%

0%

11%

6%

3%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

42%

3%

4%

1%

1%

1%

5%

10%

0%

11%

0%

0%

0%

8%

4%

2%

6%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

51%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

1%

5%

1%

5%

0%

0%

0%

24%

4%

6%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-113
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.105

0.002

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.017

0.053

0.003

0.019

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.027

0.009

0.006

0.017

0.036

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.032

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.004

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

4.632

0.278

0.394

0.055

0.142

0.133

0.543

1.051

0.053

1.152

0.038

0.051

0.005

0.906

0.398

0.241

0.661

0.200

--

0.003

FC

billion
counts/acre

21.504

0.003

0.006

0.001

0.018

1.253

0.417

2.153

0.231

2.275

0.001

0.008

0.001

10.100

1.513

2.410

0.060

0.000

--

0.208

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-174

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

MN-12
The assessment point area for MN-12 is located downstream of MN-9 and encompasses 1.2
square miles. The mainstem flows southeasterly for just over a mile. It begins in Clarks Woods
on the downstream end of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) and
flows easterly through the village of Butler, including the Butler Frontier Park. From this point,
it changes direction and flows southeasterly in the city of Milwaukee towards Hampton Avenue.
The downstream end of the reach is located at the confluence with the Little Menomonee River,
which is approximately located at the intersection of STH 100 and Hampton Avenue within the
city of Milwaukee. In general, the one-mile reach of the Middle Menomonee River mainstem
(MN-12) flows within a natural channel through transportation and manufacturing land uses.
This reach does have wide riparian buffers; nearly 75% of the buffers in the assessment point
area exceed 75 feet. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12)
does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Notable transportation
uses include the Union Pacific rail line and yard facilities and two interchanges on USH 45.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12) is predominantly transportation (37%). Recreation, natural areas,
and open space land uses make up nearly 24% of the total land use within the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) while manufacturing and industrial land uses
make up nearly 19% of the total land use within the area. Low-density residential (defined on
following table), high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land
uses compose the remaining 20%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 39% of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-12) is impervious. TABLE 4-114 presents the land uses within the Middle Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-12).

4-175

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-114
LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.1

11.05%

0.0

3.30%

Commercial

0.1

5.34%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

1.03%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.3

23.82%

Transportation

0.5

36.86%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.2

18.60%

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.

Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). The municipalities include the cities
of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa and the villages of Butler and Menomonee Falls. Approximately
55% of the 1.2 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The village of Butler
occupies nearly 42% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the city of Wauwatosa
occupy the remaining 2 and 1%, respectively (Figure 4-50). The extent of the civil divisions
within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) is presented in TABLE 4115.

4-176

!
!
!

!

MN-12

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Argiculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Commercial

0

³

375 750
Feet

Figure 4-50
MN-12 Land Use
1,500

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-115
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Milwaukee

0.7

55.33%

City of Wauwatosa

0.0

0.67%

Village of Butler

0.5

42.17%

Village of Menomonee Falls

0.0

1.83%

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 in the Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within the Middle Menomonee River mainstem
assessment point area (MN-12), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial
land use (38%) and industrial point sources (17%). The largest contributors of FC are
commercial (63%) and industrial (13%) land uses. 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 Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The
concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to
nonpoint sources within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). See
Figure 4-51, Figure 4-52, and Figure 4-53. Note: the black line on Figure 4-51 represents the
cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Based on detailed analysis, the concentrations of TP were assessed as poor and are greatest at
high and low flows. This may indicate the presence of a background source that is particularly
noticeable during low flows, potentially from non-contact cooling water. The elevated
concentrations of TP at high flows suggest the prevalence of nonpoint sources during high flows
within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12).
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
4-178

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations decline during the summer
months, but the lower portions of the ranges decline more than would be expected during the
summer. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD.
The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS
concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff
that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments.
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-116. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are not available. March data (which include snow melt and spring runoff) are
higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed
those measured in March. It is difficult to assess chloride trends without data from the winter
months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a
„reservoir‟ (sediment). This chloride is gradually released and this is particularly noticeable
during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow conditions, the concentration becomes diluted
(Figure 4-54).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-117 presents the Baseline annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and
TABLE 4-119 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-11 are upstream of MN-12. The Baseline cumulative loads, including
loads from MN-1 through MN-11, are estimated. TABLE 4-120 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-121 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown
for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-122 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.

4-179

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Hampton Avenue (RI 22)
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 4-51

MN-12 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-52

MN-12 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Hampton Avenue (RI-22) – Reach 857
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 4-53

MN-12 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-116

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Assessment
Point
MN-12
Middle
Menomonee River
Mainstem, Downstream of Little
Menomonee River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

50

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

795

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

31

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

69

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

348

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

21

Mean (mg/l)

10.7

Median (mg/l)

10.9

Mean (mg/l)

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

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

2,175

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

Median (mg/l)

Total Nitrogen

4,366

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

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

Baseline
Condition

99
0.1
0.061
69

Mean (mg/l)

1.07

Median (mg/l)

1.01

Mean (mg/l)

13.4

Median (mg/l)

5.2

Mean (mg/l)

0.0054

Median (mg/l)

0.0021

4-183

Hampton Avenue (RI-22) – Reach 857
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 4-54

MN-12 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-117

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

197.85

--

--

--

0.77

1.23

8.07

67.09

0.04

80.89

--

--

--

13.17

36.29

7.55

12.52

90.19

--

--

TSS

tons

77.48

--

--

--

0.12

0.53

0.56

6.77

0.00

50.28

--

--

--

4.21

18.91

2.65

0.59

0.09

--

--

BOD

pounds

8,885

--

--

--

34

105

122

855

0

5,157

--

--

--

442

1,558

291

304

570

--

--

FC

billion counts

100,528
---5
2,526
148
2,868
2
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

20,706

--

--

--

13,483

11,506

7,303

28

0

--

--

TABLE 4-118
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

38%

--

--

--

0%

0%

2%

13%

0%

16%

--

--

--

3%

7%

1%

2%

17%

--

--

TSS

48%

--

--

--

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

31%

--

--

--

3%

12%

2%

0%

0%

--

--

BOD

48%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

28%

--

--

--

2%

9%

2%

2%

3%

--

--

63%
---0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
13%
--Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

8%

7%

5%

0%

0%

--

--

Loads

FC

4-185

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-119

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.258

--

--

--

0.001

0.002

0.011

0.088

0.000

0.106

--

--

--

0.017

0.047

0.010

0.016

0.118

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.101

--

--

--

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.009

0.000

0.066

--

--

--

0.005

0.025

0.003

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

11.596

--

--

--

0.044

0.137

0.159

1.116

0.001

6.731

--

--

--

0.577

2.033

0.379

0.397

0.744

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

131.203

--

--

--

0.006

3.296

0.193

3.743

0.003

27.024

--

--

--

17.597

15.017

9.531

0.037

0.000

--

--

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-120
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

3168.31 120.10

892.02

48.30 143.00 22.51

1169.05

506.21

283.57

825.54

1671.06

--

10.28

45.77

203.45

5.15

512.17

11.19

29.33

3.86

334.92

235.80

86.87

31.41

3.10

--

0.29

BOD

pounds

249,259

22,894 47,801

7,091

6,186

7,455

19,201

54,002

1,856

56,877

5,844

8,470

1,255

39,250

21,722

10,908

28,258

10,428

--

145

955

781

185,340

17,412

152,513

9,071

253,788 2,215 12,764 2,248

993,486

162,679 226,567

2,639

0

--

11,238

FC

billion counts 2,603,835

2,634

9,331

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-186

Pasture (D)

753.93

33.10

Pasture (C)

87.21

15.17

Pasture (B)

97.20

36.29

Industrial

87.94

165.95 482.52

Grass (D)

Grass (B)

352.20 793.20

1965.84

Grass (C)

Government /
Institution

5550.41

tons

Units

Crop (C)

pounds

Loads

Crop (B)

TP
TSS

Commercial

Forest

Point Source

Crop (D)

Nonpoint Source

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-121

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

33%

2%

5%

1%

1%

1%

5%

19%

1%

5%

0%

1%

0%

7%

3%

2%

5%

10%

--

0%

TSS

tons

47%

4%

11%

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

12%

0%

1%

0%

8%

6%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

42%

4%

8%

1%

1%

1%

3%

9%

0%

9%

1%

1%

0%

7%

4%

2%

5%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion
counts

56%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

3%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

21%

3%

5%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-122
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.108

0.007

0.015

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.015

0.062

0.002

0.017

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.023

0.010

0.006

0.016

0.033

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.038

0.003

0.009

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.007

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

4.860

0.446

0.932

0.138

0.121

0.145

0.374

1.053

0.036

1.109

0.114

0.165

0.024

0.765

0.424

0.213

0.551

0.203

--

0.003

FC

billion
counts/acre

50.769

0.051

0.182

0.019

0.015

3.614

0.340

2.974

0.177

4.948

0.043

0.249

0.044

19.371

3.172

4.418

0.051

0.000

--

0.219

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-187

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River area was evaluated at MN-12. The index of
flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. At MN12, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that
this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or
snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic life and habitat regime.
There are two assessed plant communities located within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12). The quality assessments of these plant communities range from
very poor to 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. The minimum and maximum DO
concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See 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 10%
reduction from Baseline TP loads and a 46% reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived
from the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Middle Menomonee River assessment point
area (MN-12) are presented in TABLE 4-123. This table also reflects compliance with
applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of
compliance for a given water quality parameter 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. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-11 are upstream of
MN-12. TABLE 4-127 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4128 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 46% reduction in FC loading and the 10% reduction in TP 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 and the assessment of TP would also
4-188

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

remain poor. The assessments of TSS and minimum and maximum DO concentrations would
remain unchanged and very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are
focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report
No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-123
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

Statistic

MN-12
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Middle
(annual)
Menomonee
River Mainstem,
Downstream of
Little Menomonee
River

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

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

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Dissolved Oxygen

52

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

554

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

80

Total Suspended Solids

72

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

205

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

60

Mean (mg/l)

10.7

Median (mg/l)

10.9
99

Mean (mg/l)

0.096

Median (mg/l)

0.062
69

Mean (mg/l)

0.84

Median (mg/l)

0.79

Mean (mg/l)

10.8

Median (mg/l)
Copper

1,220

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

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

3,237

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

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

Year 2020
Condition

4.2

Mean (mg/l)

0.0048

Median (mg/l)

0.0020

4-189

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-124

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

182.05

--

--

--

0.76

0.96

6.01

49.37

0.03

69.55

--

--

--

12.25

31.60

7.15

12.51

90.19

--

--

TSS

tons

62.00

--

--

--

0.12

0.35

0.38

4.62

0.00

38.53

--

--

--

3.39

14.67

2.17

0.59

0.09

--

--

BOD

pounds

7,970

--

--

--

34

76

95

657

0

4,251

--

--

--

418

1,300

275

304

570

--

--

FC

billion counts

54,745

--

--

--

5

1,069

74

1,428

1

10,840

--

--

--

7,166

6,100

3,957

28

0

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-125
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

39%

--

--

--

0%

0%

1%

11%

0%

15%

--

--

--

3%

7%

2%

3%

20%

--

--

TSS

tons

49%

--

--

--

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

30%

--

--

--

3%

12%

2%

0%

0%

--

--

BOD

pounds

50%

--

--

--

0%

0%

1%

4%

0%

27%

--

--

--

3%

8%

2%

2%

4%

--

--

FC

billion counts

64%

--

--

--

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

13%

--

--

--

8%

7%

5%

0%

0%

--

--

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-190

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-126

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.225

--

--

--

0.001

0.001

0.008

0.064

0.000

0.091

--

--

--

0.015

0.041

0.009

0.016

0.118

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.081

--

--

--

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.050

--

--

--

0.004

0.019

0.003

0.001

0.000

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

10.402

--

--

--

0.044

0.099

0.124

0.858

0.000

5.548

--

--

--

0.546

1.697

0.359

0.397

0.744

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre

69.669

--

--

--

0.006

1.374

0.097

1.864

0.002

14.148

--

--

--

9.171

7.962

5.058

0.037

0.000

--

--

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-127
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)

1,312.64

478.27

285.37

SSOs

6.33

CSOs

53.62

Industrial

20.07

Wetland

Ultra Low

1,081.76

Transportation

164.99

Residential

2,853.54

Pasture (D)

796.14

Pasture (C)

101.37

Point Source
Pasture (B)

12.73 117.84

Industrial

Forest

Crop (D)

Crop (C)
212.24

Grass (D)

5,478.68 114.61

Grass (C)

pounds

Grass (B)

Units

TP

Government /
Institution

Loads

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

885.13

1,761.25

--

7.45

TSS

tons

1,711.35

43.77

84.97

3.68

18.55

33.89

50.43

182.13

7.05

562.94

4.39

9.53

1.08

329.73

204.87

77.12

34.25

3.18

--

0.21

BOD

pounds

240,333

12,822

25,030

2,440

7,772

8,219

23,567

54,266

2,659

66,722

2,917

4,016

397

44,040

19,978

10,978

30,763

10,998

--

105

136

405

25

929

160,090

18,098

118,572

12,098

211,917

110

580

73

826,035

106,414

161,645

2,787

0

--

8,137

FC

billion counts 1,868,462

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-191

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-128

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Residential

1%

Pasture (D)

0%

Pasture (C)

1%

Pasture (B)

Government /
Institution

1%

Industrial

Forest

35%

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Point Source

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

5%

18%

1%

7%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

2%

6%

11%

--

0%

TSS

tons

51%

1%

3%

0%

1%

1%

1%

5%

0%

17%

0%

0%

0%

10%

6%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

42%

2%

4%

0%

1%

1%

4%

10%

0%

12%

1%

1%

0%

8%

4%

2%

5%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

53%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

1%

3%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

24%

3%

5%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-129
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.107

0.002

0.004

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.016

0.056

0.003

0.021

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.026

0.009

0.006

0.017

0.034

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.033

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.011

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

4.686

0.250

0.488

0.048

0.152

0.160

0.459

1.058

0.052

1.301

0.057

0.078

0.008

0.859

0.390

0.214

0.600

0.214

--

0.002

FC

billion counts/acre

36.431

0.003

0.008

0.000

0.018

3.121

0.353

2.312

0.236

4.132

0.002

0.011

0.001

16.106

2.075

3.152

0.054

0.00

--

0.159

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-192

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.9 Little Menomonee Creek (Assessment Point MN-10)
Little Menomonee Creek is located in the northeastern portion of the Menomonee River
watershed. The Little Menomonee Creek flows southerly for about three miles to its confluence
with the mainstem. The creek begins just west of the intersection of Granville and Highland
Roads, within the city of Mequon. It flows easterly along the south side of Highland Road,
changes direction and then flows southwesterly towards Trinity Lutheran Grade School at the
intersection of Granville and Freistadt Roads. From this point, the creek continues to flow
southwesterly and gradually changes direction and flows southeasterly towards the intersection
of STH 167 and Granville Road. At this point, the creek enters the Little Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-11), see page 208. For the most part, the Little Menomonee Creek
flows within a natural channel through agricultural lands. However, the riparian margin is
relatively narrow, with the width being less than 25 feet in most reaches. Only 30% of the creek
has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The narrow riparian margin can be attributed to
farming right up to the edge of the river. The Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area
does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the Little Menomonee Creek‟s assessment point area
(MN-10) encompasses 3.0 square miles. The land use within the assessment point area for MN10 is predominantly agriculture (61%) (Figure 4-55). Recreation, natural areas, and open space
land uses make up nearly 22% of the total land use while low-density residential (defined on
following table) comprises nearly 11% of the total land use. Transportation along with highdensity residential, institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial
land uses composes the remaining 6%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 5% of the MN-10 assessment point area is impervious.
TABLE 4-130 presents the land uses within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area
(MN-10).

4-193

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-130
LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

1.8

60.76%

0.3

11.28%

0.0

0.55%

Commercial

0.0

0.06%

Institutional & Governmental

0.0

0.65%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.7

21.60%

Transportation

0.2

4.95%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.0

0.15%

Total

3.0

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.

4-194

on Road

!

MN-10

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies

Land Use

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Commercial

0

³

500 1,000
Feet

Figure 4-55
MN-10 Land Use
2,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of two municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the
MN-10 assessment point area. The municipalities include: the city of Mequon and the village of
Germantown. Approximately 93% of the 3.0 square mile assessment point area is located within
the city of Mequon. The village of Germantown occupies the remaining 7%. The extent of the
civil divisions within the MN-10 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-131.
TABLE 4-131
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Civil Division

Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Mequon

2.8

92.93%

Village of Germantown

0.2

7.07%

Total

3.0

100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality
Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of
focus in Little Menomonee Creek are FC and TSS. Within the Little Menomonee Creek
assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline FC loads are commercial (41%) and
residential (28%) land uses. The largest contributors of TSS are crops grown on hydrologic
group C soils (47%) and commercial land use (21%). It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-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 these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The
concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to
nonpoint sources within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area. See Figure 4-56,
Figure 4-57, and Figure 4-58. Note: the black line on Figure 4-56 represents the cumulative
number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Total suspended solids data were also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TSS were
classified as poor. The data suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources.
The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank
erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TP
data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the

4-196

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations declined during summer
months, but also note that DO declined during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff
may carry a relatively large organic load and BOD.
The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. Unlike a number of other assessment
points, the TP concentrations are not strongly correlated with TSS concentrations within the
Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-132. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-133 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-134 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE
4-135 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-197

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Little Menomonee Creek (RI 861)
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 4-56

MN-10 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-57

MN-10 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Little Menomonee Creek – Reach 861
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 4-58

MN-10 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-132

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Assessment
Point
MN-10
Little Menomonee
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

57

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

438

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

91

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

3,710

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

73

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

201

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

62

Mean (mg/l)

9.2

Median (mg/l)

9.2

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

97

Mean (mg/l)

0.061

Median (mg/l)

0.049
89

Mean (mg/l)

1.06

Median (mg/l)

0.93

Mean (mg/l)

24.6

Median (mg/l)
Copper

4,970

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

10.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0031

Median (mg/l)

0.0014

4-201

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-133

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

13.39

1.47

26.08

--

22.91

25.98

--

--

--

0.65

4.35

0.15

1.07

0.71

2.28

0.23

7.79

--

7.54

0.83

--

--

--

295

1,382

44

116

377

747

67

876

--

881

694

--

--

--

60,969
136
1,313
48
47
3,715
233
3,608
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

225

749

143

1,046

121

42,411

--

35,518

62

--

--

--

Government /
Institution

3.44

Forest

1.82

Crop (D)

4.10

Crop (C)

81.14

Crop (B)

12.77

Commercial

Grass (C)

Point Source

Grass (B)

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

74.85

24.84

123.96

5.20

6.81

1.13

TSS

tons

27.79

12.61

62.76

2.05

0.97

0.46

BOD

pounds

3,361

1,154

6,022

327

424

96

FC

billion counts

TABLE 4-134
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

17%

6%

29%

1%

2%

0%

3%

19%

1%

0%

1%

3%

0%

6%

--

5%

6%

--

--

--

TSS

21%

10%

47%

2%

1%

0%

0%

3%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

6%

--

6%

1%

--

--

--

BOD

20%

7%

36%

2%

3%

1%

2%

8%

0%

1%

2%

4%

0%

5%

--

5%

4%

--

--

--

FC
41%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

28%

--

24%

0%

--

--

--

Loads

4-202

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-135

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.035

0.012

0.058

0.002

0.003

0.001

0.006

0.038

0.002

0.001

0.002

0.006

0.001

0.012

--

0.011

0.012

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.013

0.006

0.030

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.004

--

0.004

0.000

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.582

0.543

2.835

0.154

0.199

0.045

0.139

0.651

0.021

0.055

0.177

0.352

0.031

0.412

--

0.415

0.327

--

--

--

billion counts/acre 28.702

0.064

0.618

0.023

0.022

1.749

0.110

1.699

0.106

0.352

0.067

0.492

0.057

19.966

--

16.721

0.029

--

--

--

FC

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-203

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) was
evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in
stream flow. Within the area, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of
flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow
following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. The Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) does not
contain any assesses 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 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 from Baseline FC loads and a 44% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived
from the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point
area (MN-10) are presented in TABLE 4-136. This table also reflects compliance with
applicable water quality standards within the 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 4-137 presents the
Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-138 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown
for each load, and TABLE 4-139 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre
basis.
Notwithstanding the 16% reduction in FC loading and the 44% 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 and the assessment of TSS would also
remain poor. The assessments of the minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain
unchanged and very good. Similarly, the assessment of TP would also remain unchanged as
good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and
may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water
quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment
of flashiness within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) would also

4-204

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

remain unchanged (very good). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-136
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-10)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-10
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Little Menomonee
(annual)
Creek

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

4,075

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

59

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

278

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

163

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,998

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

74

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

110

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

108

Mean (mg/l)

9.2

Median (mg/l)

9.2

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

98

Mean (mg/l)

0.056

Median (mg/l)

0.046

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

Year 2020 Condition

91

Mean (mg/l)

0.80

Median (mg/l)

0.72

Mean (mg/l)

18.1

Median (mg/l)

9.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0026

Median (mg/l)

0.0012

4-205

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-137

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)

5.33

24.68

0.22

1.41

0.80

BOD

pounds

2,805

996

5,342

85

615

183

FC

billion counts

49,656

10

91

1

68

6,910

SSOs

21.09

CSOs

tons

Industrial

TSS

Wetland

2.26

Ultra Low

9.88

Transportation

0.64

Residential

56.25

Pasture (D)

11.81

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

65.25

Pasture (B)

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

14.51

71.77

7.95

0.50

2.21

13.23

0.28

24.52

0.00

20.24

36.28

--

--

--

0.66

3.49

0.26

0.26

0.45

2.12

0.04

6.37

0.00

5.77

1.16

--

--

--

344

1,261

87

30

299

915

16

798

0

751

969

--

--

--

265

3,194

439

193

11

128

3

36,838

0

28,958

86

--

--

--

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-138
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

19%

3%

17%

0%

3%

1%

4%

21%

2%

0%

1%

4%

0%

7%

0%

6%

11%

--

--

--

TSS

tons

28%

7%

33%

0%

2%

1%

1%

5%

0%

0%

1%

3%

0%

9%

0%

8%

2%

--

--

--

BOD

pounds

18%

6%

34%

1%

4%

1%

2%

8%

1%

0%

2%

6%

0%

5%

0%

5%

6%

--

--

--

0%

0%

0%

29%

0%

23%

0%

--

--

--

FC
billion counts
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
39%

0%

0%

0%

4-206

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

0%

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-139

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.030

0.006

0.026

0.000

0.005

0.001

0.007

0.034

0.004

0.000

0.001

0.006

0.000

0.011

0.000

0.009

0.017

--

--

--

TSS

tons/acre

0.010

0.003

0.012

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.003

0.001

--

--

--

BOD

pounds/acre

1.320

0.469

2.515

0.040

0.290

0.086

0.162

0.593

0.041

0.014

0.141

0.431

0.000

0.375

0.000

0.354

0.456

--

--

--

--

--

FC

billion counts/acre 23.094
0.005
0.043
0.000
0.032
3.244 0.125
1.504
0.207
0.091
0.005 0.060
0.001
17.191
0.000
13.497
0.040
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-207

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.10 Little Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-11)
The Little Menomonee River is located in the northeastern portion of the Menomonee River
watershed. The river generally flows southerly for about 10 miles to its confluence with the
Menomonee River mainstem. The Little Menomonee River begins in the city of Mequon,
northeast of the intersection of Farmdale and Freistadt Roads. It flows southwesterly through
Solar Heights Woods, south of STH 167, and along the west side of the Resurrection Cemetery.
South of the cemetery, the Little Menomonee Creek flows into the Little Menomonee River
north of Donges Bay Road and east of Granville Road. From the confluence, the river flows
southerly within a mile of Triple Woods and Stauss Woods, then south of CTH Q and through
North Lake Park before flowing south of Brown Deer Road. The river continues to flow
southerly, within ¾ mile of Bradley Woods, flows east of Vincent High School, and then flows
south of Good Hope Road. The confluence with Noyes Park Creek is located south of Good
Hope Road. From the confluence, the river changes direction and flows southwesterly past STH
145, USH 41, Timmerman Airport, and STH 100 where it enters the Lower Menomonee River
mainstem assessment point area (MN-15), see page 257.
In the northern reaches, the Little Menomonee River flows through agricultural lands and has a
riparian margin width that varies from greater than 75 feet to less than 25 feet. Nearly half of the
riparian margin within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area exceeds 75 feet. The
Little Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop
structures, or other obstructions. South of CTH Q, the river flows through more residential and
industrial areas, but is associated with a parkway system, which generally allows a greater
riparian width. In general, the Little Menomonee River flows through a natural channel.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the Little Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-11) encompasses 18.8 square miles. The land uses within the Little Menomonee River
assessment point area are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (27%) (Figure
4-59). Agriculture land use makes up nearly 26% of the total land use while low-density
residential (defined on following table) makes up nearly 17% of the total land use. Freeways,
arterial streets, and local roads contribute to transportation that makes up approximately 17% of
the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial along with high-density residential, institutional
and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 13%. Based on an analysis
of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 17% of the area is
impervious. TABLE 4-140 presents the land uses within the Little Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-11).

4-208

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-140

LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

4.9

25.98%

3.2

17.14%

0.8

4.01%

Commercial

0.3

1.57%

Institutional & Governmental

0.5

2.89%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

5.1

27.06%

Transportation

3.1

16.59%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.9

4.76%

Total

18.8

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.

4-209

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M EE Q
QU
UO
ON
N

!

Mequon Road
Mequon Road

!

Main St.

Brown Deer Rd.

!

G
ND
D AA LL EE
G LL EE N
Green

D

d.
Ba y R

nd
Fo

76th St.

!

u
c
La
v.
A

n
to
le
pp
A
v.

!

A

MN-11

!

!
!

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Commercial

0

³

1,300 2,600
Feet

Figure 4-59
MN-11 Land Use
5,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, and Washington counties are
located within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). The municipalities
include: the city of Mequon, the city of Milwaukee, and the village of Germantown.
Approximately 61% of the 18.8 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The
city of Mequon occupies nearly 38% of the area, and the village of Germantown occupies the
remaining 1%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area is presented in TABLE 4-141.
TABLE 4-141
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Civil Division

Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Mequon

7.2

38.27%

City of Milwaukee

11.4

60.74%

Village of Germantown

0.2

0.99%

Total

18.8

100.00%

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 Little Menomonee River is FC. Within the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-11), the largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (59%) and
residential (22%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant
loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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
area‟s land uses. 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The
concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to
nonpoint sources within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area. See Figure 4-60,
Figure 4-61, and Figure 4-62. Note: the black line on Figure 4-60 represents the cumulative
number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments of DO, TP, and TSS were performed.
The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm
weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations decline during summer months, but also note

4-211

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

that DO concentrations decline during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff may carry
a relatively large organic load and BOD.
The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS
concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff
that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments.
The assessment of TP was good and the data indicate that concentrations of phosphorus are
greatest at high flows. This suggests a predominance of nonpoint sources of phosphorus within
the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). Note also that the TP
concentrations increase at low flows; this could be an indication that the assessment point area
contains background sources of phosphorus, such as non-contact cooling water. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-142. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-143 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-144 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE
4-145 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Little Menomonee
Creek (MN-10) assessment point area is upstream of the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-11). TABLE 4-146 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads,
TABLE 4-147 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and
TABLE 4-148 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-212

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Little Menomonee River (RI 871)
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 4-60

MN-11 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-61

MN-11 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Little Menomonee River – Reach 871
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 4-62

MN-11 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-142

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-11)
Assessment
Point
MN-11
Little Menomonee
River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

53

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

700

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

68

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended
Solids

Copper

4,477

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

70

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

261

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

48

Mean (mg/l)

10.4

Median (mg/l)

10.5
98

Mean (mg/l)

0.058

Median (mg/l)

0.043

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

7,777

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

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

Baseline
Condition

89

Mean (mg/l)

0.58

Median (mg/l)

0.56

Mean (mg/l)

13.2

Median (mg/l)

4.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.005

Median (mg/l)

0.0017

4-216

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-143

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)

4.91
1,611
2,254

51.38

0.86

193.64

16,304

254

21,113
135,881

415

billion counts 1,289,521 441
2,392
457
179
127,057
2,531
42,578 1,311
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

1.32

89.08

57.53

11.18

390

10,016

4,995

1,308

709

485,048

59,158

52,721

438

SSOs

2.04
1,091

7.01
3,201

34.01

CSOs

3,291

116.41

Industrial

15.61

1,620

298.32

Wetland

3.72

3,093

8.57

184.97

355.28

--

0.47

5.93

1.27

--

0.01

4,940

3,093

--

7

0

--

517

TABLE 4-144
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Crop (B)

Nonpoint Source

Commercial

FC

19.42

331.11

Ultra Low

10,971

23.89

Transportation

114.34

3,743

28.86

957.36

Residential

40.92

71,094

9.97

138.50

Pasture (D)

587.80

38.50

Pasture (C)

tons
pounds

26.04

Pasture (B)

TSS
BOD

49.18

Industrial

225.86

Grass (D)

80.57

Grass (C)

1583.10

Point Source

Grass (B)

pounds

Government /
Institution

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Forest

Crop (B)

Loads

Crop (D)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

35%

2%

5%

1%

1%

1%

3%

21%

1%

7%

0%

1%

0%

7%

3%

1%

4%

8%

--

0%

TSS

49%

3%

9%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

16%

0%

0%

0%

7%

5%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

44%

2%

7%

2%

1%

2%

2%

10%

0%

13%

1%

1%

0%

6%

3%

1%

3%

2%

--

0%

FC
59%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
6%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

22%

3%

2%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

4-217

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-145

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.135

0.007

0.019

0.004

0.002

0.003

0.012

0.081

0.002

0.028

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.025

0.010

0.003

0.016

0.030

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.050

0.003

0.010

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.016

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

0.005

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.043

0.318

0.933

0.263

0.138

0.280

0.272

1.386

0.022

1.794

0.093

0.137

0.033

0.851

0.425

0.111

0.420

0.263

--

0.001

FC

billion counts/acre

109.603

0.037

0.203

0.039

0.015

10.799

0.215

3.619

0.111

11.549

0.035

0.192

0.060

41.227

5.028

4.481

0.037

0.000

--

0.044

Loads

Units

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-146
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)

324.41

116.41

56.93

SSOs

10.04

CSOs

42.24

Industrial

13.42

Wetland

332.93

Ultra Low

27.99

Transportation

1038.50

Residential

151.27

Pasture (D)

39.63

Pasture (C)

32.85

Point Source
Pasture (B)

54.38

Industrial

349.83

Grass (D)

105.41

Grass (C)

1657.95

Grass (B)

pounds

Government /
Institution

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Forest

Crop (B)

Loads

Crop (D)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

210.96

355.28

--

0.47

TSS

tons

615.60

53.54

177.10

21.47

4.69

16.07

7.66

55.73

1.00

194.71

2.75

7.18

1.55

96.87

57.53

18.72

6.76

1.27

--

0.01

BOD

pounds

74,455

4,897

16,993

3,420

2,044

3,387

3,496

17,686

298

21,229

1,468

2,358

456

10,891

4,995

2,190

5,634

3,093

--

7

FC

billion counts

1,350,490

576

3,705

506

226

130,771

2,765

46,186

1,536

136,629

558

3,300

830

527,459

59,158

88,239

499

0

--

517

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-218

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-147

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

34%

2%

7%

1%

1%

1%

3%

21%

1%

7%

0%

1%

0%

7%

2%

1%

4%

7%

--

0%

TSS

tons

46%

4%

13%

2%

0%

1%

1%

4%

0%

15%

0%

1%

0%

7%

4%

1%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

42%

3%

9%

2%

1%

2%

2%

10%

0%

12%

1%

1%

0%

6%

3%

1%

3%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion
counts

57%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

2%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

22%

3%

4%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

Units

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-148
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.119

0.008

0.025

0.004

0.002

0.003

0.011

0.075

0.002

0.024

0.001

0.003

0.001

0.023

0.008

0.004

0.015

0.026

--

0.000

TSS

Tons/acre

0.044

0.004

0.013

0.002

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.014

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.007

0.004

0.001

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

Pounds/acre

5.360

0.353

1.223

0.246

0.147

0.244

0.252

1.273

0.021

1.528

0.106

0.170

0.033

0.784

0.360

0.158

0.406

0.223

--

0.000

billion counts/acre 97.230

0.042

0.267

0.036

0.016

9.415

0.199

3.325

0.111

9.837

0.040

0.238

0.060

37.975

4.259

6.353

0.036

0.000

--

0.037

BOD
FC

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-219

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11) 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 good. This assessment of
flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow
following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There are 13 assessed plant communities located within the Little
Menomonee River assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities
range from very poor to good; overall, the communities tend to be higher quality. 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 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 21%
reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-11). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-149. This also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed 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 4-150 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-151 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-152 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-153 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-154 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-155 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on
a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 21% reduction in FC 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. In addition to the parameter of focus, the assessment of DO
(annual) and DO (warm weather months) would remain unchanged and very good. The
assessment of TSS would also remain as very good and the assessment of TP would remain
4-220

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

unchanged as good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat
suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are
based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates
that the assessment of flashiness within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN11) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled
water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-149
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-11)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-11
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Little Menomonee
(annual)
River

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

54

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

520

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

96

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

2,704

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

71

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

171

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

69

Mean (mg/l)

10.4

Median (mg/l)

10.6
98

Mean (mg/l)

0.053

Median (mg/l)

0.041

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

6,053

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

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

Year 2020
Condition

91

Mean (mg/l)

0.47

Median (mg/l)

0.46

Mean (mg/l)

9.7

Median (mg/l)

3.3

Mean (mg/l)

0.0040

Median (mg/l)

0.0014

4-221

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-150

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)

295.24

100.03

30.31

1.83

2.88

0.47

76.48

43.42

8.61

1,230

1,242

187

9,646

4,091

1,129

174

34

412,048

468

332.87

6.25

38.35

1.88

170.99

3,239

13,849

635

20,229

35,090

3,188

117,554

47

44,898 40,449

SSOs

3.32

57.74

CSOs

2,494

17.95

788.39

Industrial

106,215

9.06

136.76

Wetland

211

Ultra Low

4

Transportation

90

3,076

Residential

17

13.33

1,910

Pasture (D)

976,339

FC

4.38

333

Pasture (C)

billion
counts

BOD

0.86

Pasture (B)

pounds

5,260

38.27

Industrial

24.30

1,636

tons

30.70

Grass (D)

8.76

59,867

TSS

2.52

Grass (C)

448.20

pounds

Point Source

Grass (B)

55.39

TP

Government /
Institution

Crop (C)

19.41

Units

Forest

Crop (B)

1,390.76

Loads

Crop (D)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

197.77

355.28

--

0.47

6.34

1.27

--

0.01

5,282

3,093

--

7

0

--

517

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-151
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Ultra Low

1%

Transportation

0%

Residential

1%

Pasture (D)

1%

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

36%

Pasture (B)

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

4%

20%

1%

9%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

1%

5%

9%

--

0%

TSS

tons

52%

1%

3%

0%

1%

2%

1%

4%

0%

20%

0%

0%

0%

9%

5%

1%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

44%

1%

4%

0%

1%

2%

2%

10%

0%

15%

1%

1%

0%

7%

3%

1%

4%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

56%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

2%

0%

7%

0%

0%

0%

24%

3%

2%

0%

0%

--

0%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-222

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-152

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.115

0.002

0.005

0.000

0.003

0.003

0.012

0.067

0.005

0.028

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.024

0.009

0.002

0.017

0.030

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.038

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.015

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.007

0.004

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

5.088

0.139

0.447

0.028

0.162

0.261

0.275

1.177

0.054

1.719

0.105

0.106

0.000

0.820

0.348

0.096

0.449

0.263

--

0.001

billion counts/acre 81.532

0.001

0.008

0.000

0.018

8.959

0.212

2.982

0.271

9.992

0.004

0.015

0.003

34.602

3.816

3.389

0.040

0.000

--

0.000

FC

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-153
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds

1,456.01

31.23

111.64

3.17

40.59

40.53

151.26

860.16

65.69

333.37

11.27 31.17

3.60

319.76

100.03

50.54

234.04

355.28

--

0.47

tons

469.29

14.10

48.98

1.07

5.79

14.13

6.91

41.85

2.14

171.24

2.28

5.00

0.51

82.85

43.42

14.39

7.50

1.27

--

0.01

BOD

pounds

62,672

2,632

10,601

418

2,525

3,258

3,583

15,109

722

20,260

1,530 2,158

203

10,444

4,091

1,880

6,251

3,093

--

7

FC

billion
counts

1,025,995

27

181

4

279

113,124

2,759

38,284

3,627

117,747

37

448,886

44,898

69,407

554

0

--

517

Units

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-223

58

Pasture (C)

Crop (C)

TP
TSS

Loads

Pasture (B)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

302

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-154

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Residential

1%

Pasture (D)

0%

Pasture (C)

3%

Pasture (B)

Government /
Institution

1%

Industrial

Forest

35%

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Point Source

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

4%

20%

2%

8%

0%

1%

0%

8%

2%

1%

6%

8%

--

0%

TSS

tons

50%

2%

5%

0%

1%

2%

1%

4%

0%

18%

0%

1%

0%

9%

5%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

41%

2%

7%

0%

2%

2%

2%

10%

0%

13%

1%

1%

0%

7%

3%

1%

4%

2%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

55%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

2%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

24%

2%

4%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-155
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.105

0.002

0.008

0.000

0.003

0.003

0.011

0.062

0.005

0.024

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.023

0.007

0.004

0.017

0.026

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.034

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.012

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.006

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

4.512

0.189

0.763

0.030

0.182

0.235

0.258

1.088

0.052

1.459

0.110

0.155

0.015

0.752

0.295

0.135

0.450

0.223

--

0.000

FC

billion counts/acre

73.868

0.002

0.013

0.000

0.020

8.145

0.199

2.756

0.261

8.477

0.004

0.022

0.003

32.318

3.232

4.997

0.040

0.000

--

0.037

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-224

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.11 Underwood Creek Area (Assessment Points MN-13 and MN-14)
Underwood Creek is located in the southern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This
area is represented by assessment point areas MN-13 and MN-14. The Underwood Creek
assessment point area (MN-13) is located in the upstream reaches of the Underwood Creek area
and includes the Dousman Ditch tributary area. The Dousman Ditch tributary passes
approximately 1-½ miles from the Brookfield Swamp. Underwood Creek begins in Wirth Park
in the city of Brookfield and flows northeast across Pilgrim Road, past Dixon Elementary School
and flows north of the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line. From this point, the creek changes
direction and flows easterly towards Zion Woods and then flows southeasterly into the village of
Elm Grove. At this point, the creek flows into the Underwood Creek assessment point area
(MN-14). The Underwood Creek assessment point area contains four known dams, drop
structures, or other obstructions. Throughout the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN13), the creek flows within a natural channel, through predominantly low density residential land
uses. The width of the riparian corridor varies. It is relatively narrow along the Dousman Ditch
and in the vicinity of Wirth Park, but widens to 75 feet or greater along the reach just north of the
Village of Elm Grove.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the creek, the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN13) encompasses 7.4 square miles. The land use within the area is predominantly (43%) lowdensity residential (defined on following table) (Figure 4-63). Recreation, natural areas, and
open space land uses make up nearly 24% of the total land use while transportation land uses
make up nearly 20% of the total land use within the Underwood Creek assessment point area
(MN-13). Agricultural land uses, along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density
residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining
13%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 21% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-156 presents the land uses within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13).

4-225

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-156

LAND USE IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.2

2.54%

3.2

43.45%

0.2

2.55%

Commercial

0.2

2.75%

Institutional & Governmental

0.3

4.28%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.8

24.07%

Transportation

1.5

20.06%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.0

0.30%

Total

7.4

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.

4-226

Capitol Dr.

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

!

MN-13

Bluemound Rd.

Greenfield Av.

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Land Use

Waterbodies

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Water

Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

0

³

700 1,400
Feet

Figure 4-63
MN-13 Land Use
2,800

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the
town of Brookfield, and the village of Elm Grove. Approximately 88% of the 7.4 square mile
area is located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Elm Grove and the town of
Brookfield occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) is presented in TABLE 4-157.
TABLE 4-157
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Brookfield

6.5

88.39%

Town of Brookfield

0.2

2.37%

Village of Elm Grove

0.7

9.24%

Total

7.4

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 Underwood Creek are TP, FC and TSS. Within the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-13), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (36%) and
grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (32%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial
(59%) and residential (26%) land uses. Commercial (71%) and residential (13%) land uses are
the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact
pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 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 these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. While
FC tends to decline during the summer swimming season, the FC concentrations exceed
regulatory standards on some days. For example, during periods with the highest flows, FC
counts exceed the regulatory standard all of the time. This suggests that nonpoint sources are
responsible for exceedances within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). See
Figure 4-64, Figure 4-65, and Figure 4-66. Note: the black line on Figure 4-64 represents the
cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.

4-228

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as moderate and TSS concentrations were assessed as poor. Concentrations of TP tend to
increase during spring and summer, suggesting a relationship with annual snowmelt and
nonpoint inputs of fertilizers. Increased flows tend to be coincident with the highest
concentrations of TP and suggest that nonpoint sources are responsible for elevated
concentrations of TP within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The
concentrations of TSS tend to increase with increasing flows.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations
were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). Within the Underwood Creek
assessment point area (MN-13), the data indicate that DO concentrations declined more than
expected during the summer months. This decline could be due to a combination of decreased
water agitation and higher water temperatures. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-158. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-159 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-160 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-161 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-229

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Underwood Creek (RI 890)
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 4-64

MN-13 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-65

MN-13 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Underwood Creek – Reach 890
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 4-66

MN-13 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-158

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Assessment
Point
MN-13
Underwood 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

61

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

789

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

44

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

4,377

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

77

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

404

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

17

Mean (mg/l)

10.1

Median (mg/l)

9.8

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

96

Mean (mg/l)

0.069

Median (mg/l)

0.050
83

Mean (mg/l)

0.68

Median (mg/l)

0.61

Mean (mg/l)

17.2

Median (mg/l)
Copper

9,075

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

7.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0048

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

4-233

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-159

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)

369

FC

billion counts

7.82

--

0.05

1.65

175.13

--

10.89

7.81

25.10

2.55

4.80

--

0.01

0.25

57.38

--

2,097

3,688

9,258

962

499

--

3

72

5,880

--

6,066

3,203

--

4

147

287,543

--

655,448
0
31
351
96
80,833
4,180
33,983
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

2,446

105.43

CSOs

0.81

133

725.67

Industrial

13.44

0

196.41

Wetland

1.27

36,202

24.54

Ultra Low

0.00

pounds

Transportation

323.10

BOD

Residential

6.19

Pasture (D)

34.40

Pasture (C)

2.53

Pasture (B)

0.01

tons

Industrial

Forest

806.12

TSS

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Government /
Institution

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

19.25

153.85

--

--

1.89

6.92

3.86

--

--

0.05

741

4,051

--

--

27

29,790

548

--

--

2,068

TABLE 4-160
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

36%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

9%

32%

5%

0%

--

0%

0%

8%

--

1%

7%

--

--

0%

TSS

71%

0%

0%

3%

0%

2%

2%

5%

1%

1%

--

0%

0%

13%

--

2%

1%

--

--

0%

BOD

54%

0%

0%

4%

1%

3%

6%

14%

1%

1%

--

0%

0%

9%

--

1%

6%

--

--

0%

FC
59%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
3%
1%
0%
-0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

0%

26%

--

3%

0%

--

--

0%

Loads

4-234

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-161

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

Pounds/acre

0.173

0.000

0.001

0.007

0.001

0.005

0.042

0.156

0.023

0.002

--

0.000

0.000

0.038

--

0.004

0.033

--

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.069

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.005

0.001

0.001

--

0.000

0.000

0.012

--

0.001

0.001

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

7.780

0.000

0.028

0.526

0.079

0.451

0.792

1.989

0.207

0.107

--

0.001

0.016

1.264

--

0.159

0.871

--

--

0.006

0.000

0.007

0.076

0.021

17.371

0.898

7.303

1.304

0.688

--

0.001

0.032

61.792

--

6.402

0.118

--

--

0.444

FC

billion counts/acre 140.854

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-235

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) 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 seven assessed plant communities located within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The quality assessments of these plant
communities range from very poor 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. The minimum
DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as
very good during the warm weather months. See 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 15%
reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 23% reduction
from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Underwood Creek assessment point area
(MN-13). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for this assessment point are presented in TABLE 4162. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table,
the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed 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 4-163 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-164 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-165 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and moderate
for the swimming season measure. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading would result
in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good and TP from moderate to
good. The minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as good and the maximum DO
concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The
preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not
4-236

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality
regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of
flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) would remain as
moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness
under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-162
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-13
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Underwood Creek
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

4,845

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

64

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

422

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

119

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,210

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

80

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

212

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

66

Mean (mg/l)

10.1

Median (mg/l)

9.8

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

96

Mean (mg/l)

0.061

Median (mg/l)

0.044

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

Year 2020
Condition

86

Mean (mg/l)

0.59

Median (mg/l)

0.53

Mean (mg/l)

12.8

Median (mg/l)

5.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0038

Median (mg/l)

0.0010

4-237

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-163
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

724.26

--

0.32

--

5.22

21.78

151.92

562.64

109.85

4.80

--

--

--

160.37

--

16.00

153.11

--

--

1.89

TSS

tons

255.90

--

0.16

--

0.68

8.54

5.69

18.47

2.51

2.56

--

--

--

47.48

--

5.17

3.84

--

--

0.05

BOD

pounds

30,835

--

28

--

310

1,692

2,961

7,525

1,047

290

--

--

--

5,214

--

590

4,032

--

--

27

FC

billion counts

359,924

--

1

--

81

42,034

2,217

18,127

4,360

1,233

--

--

--

156,855

--

14,553

545

--

--

2,068

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-164
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

38%

--

0%

--

0%

1%

8%

29%

6%

0%

--

--

--

8%

--

1%

8%

--

--

0%

TSS

tons

73%

--

0%

--

0%

2%

2%

5%

1%

1%

--

--

--

14%

--

1%

1%

--

--

0%

BOD

pounds

57%

--

0%

--

1%

3%

5%

14%

2%

1%

--

--

--

10%

--

1%

7%

--

--

0%

FC

billion counts

60%

--

0%

--

0%

7%

0%

3%

1%

0%

--

--

--

26%

--

2%

0%

--

--

0%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-238

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-165

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.149

--

0.000

--

0.001

0.004

0.033

0.121

0.024

0.001

--

--

--

0.032

--

0.003

0.033

--

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.055

--

0.000

--

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.001

0.001

--

--

--

0.010

--

0.001

0.001

--

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.626

--

0.006

--

0.067

0.364

0.636

1.617

0.225

0.062

--

--

--

1.121

--

0.127

0.866

--

--

0.006

FC

billion counts/acre

73.812
-0.000
-0.017
8.821
0.476
3.895
0.937
0.265
---32.529
-2.996
0.117
--0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-239

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

MN-14
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is located downstream of the Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-13). Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14)
includes the South Branch Underwood Creek and the lower reaches of Underwood Creek.
Within this area, the creek begins at the northern boundary of the village of Elm Grove. The
creek flows southeast towards the Elm Grove Village Hall. Southeast of the Village Hall, the
creek crosses to the south side of the CP rail line and enters an enclosed conduit to pass beneath
the shopping center located along Watertown Plank Road. The creek emerges from the south
side of the shopping center, crosses to the north side of the CP rail line and begins to flow east
towards 124th Street and its confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek, which is
predominantly a concrete-lined channel. The creek passes less than ½ mile from Bishops Woods
and Elm Grove Pond.
Immediately downstream of the confluence, the creek flows into Milwaukee County on the north
side of Blue Mound Road. From this point, the creek flows within a concrete-lined channel
through Underwood Creek Parkway in a northeasterly direction, past STH 100 and USH 45 and
along the north side of the Milwaukee County Grounds and Wil-O-Way Woods in the city of
Wauwatosa. The creek flows past the Hansen Park Golf Course about 200 feet upstream of its
confluence with the Menomonee River.
Within this area, the creek flows through low density residential to the west and to the south.
East of the county line, the creek flows within a parkway system and adjacent to the County
Grounds and institutions. The riparian margin varies from greater than 75 feet wide to less than
25 feet wide. The Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains six known dams,
drop structures, or other obstructions. There are several noted conditions of streambank erosion
located approximately in the Elm Grove Village Grounds and along Bluemound Road upstream
of the confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Underwood Creek assessment
point area (MN-14) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (34%).
Transportation land use makes up nearly 32% of the total land use while recreation, natural
areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 17% of the total land use within the area (Figure
4-67). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential,
institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 17%.
Overall, MN-14‟s assessment point area contains a number of notable features including Mayfair
and Brookfield Square shopping malls, the Milwaukee County Zoo, numerous interchanges
associated with I-94 and USH 45, and a large regional floodwater management project located at
the Milwaukee County Grounds (currently under construction). Based on an analysis of land use
data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 28% of the Underwood Creek
assessment point area (MN-14) is impervious. TABLE 4-166 presents the land uses within the
area.

4-240

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-166

LAND USE IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.19%

4.2

33.51%

0.7

5.77%

Commercial

0.5

3.71%

Institutional & Governmental

0.6

4.78%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

2.1

16.95%

Transportation

4.0

32.09%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.4

3.00%

Total

12.5

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.

4-241

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA
!

MN-14
!

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

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Land Use

Waterbodies

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilites

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Water

Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

0

³

700 1,400
Feet

Figure 4-67
MN-14 Land Use
2,800

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of six municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The municipalities include: the cities of
Brookfield, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Elm
Grove. Nearly 32% of the 12.5 square mile modeling is located within the city of Wauwatosa.
The city of West Allis and the village of Elm Grove occupy nearly 22 and 21% of the area,
respectively. The cities of Brookfield, New Berlin and Milwaukee, together, occupy the
remaining 25%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-14) is presented in TABLE 4-167.
TABLE 4-167
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Brookfield

2.1

17.02%

City of Milwaukee

0.4

3.17%

City of New Berlin

0.7

5.37%

City of Wauwatosa

4.0

31.68%

City of West Allis

2.7

21.92%

Village of Elm Grove

2.6

20.84%

Total

12.5

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 Underwood Creek are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-14), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (38%) and
grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (32%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial
(58%) and residential (22%) land uses. Commercial (62%) and transportation (12%) land uses
are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly
impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The
data indicate that FC concentrations tend to decrease during the summer months and that

4-243

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

nonpoint sources are the primary contributors of FC in the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-14). See Figure 4-68, Figure 4-69, and Figure 4-70. Note: the black line on Figure 468 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as moderate and are greatest in March and are likely related to runoff from snowmelt.
Concentrations decline during the summer and early fall and could be related to plant uptake
during the growing season. The data also suggest that TP concentrations are attributed to
nonpoint sources and that TP could be associated with suspended solids. Total suspended solids
were characterized as poor within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The
increase in concentrations of TSS with increasing flow suggests that nonpoint sources contribute
to elevated TSS. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries sediment load, from
stream bank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains concrete-lined reaches. As a result, re-suspension
of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches
that experience these processes.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations
were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). While it is natural for DO
concentrations to decline during the summer months, the data indicate that DO concentrations
sporadically decline during these months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled
water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-168. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. TABLE 4-169 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads
within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). Note: loads of BOD are presented
in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-170
presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-171 presents the
Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Underwood Creek assessment point are
(MN-13) is upstream of Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). TABLE 4-172
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-173 presents the Baseline
percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-174 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-244

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Underwood Creek (RI 905)
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 4-68

MN-14 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-69

MN-14 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Underwood Creek – Reach 905
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 4-70

MN-14 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-168

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Assessment
Point
MN-14
Underwood Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic

Baseline
Condition

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

8,133

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

71

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

691

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

247

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,964

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

86

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

351

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

147

Mean (mg/l)

11.0

Median (mg/l)

11.1

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.066

Median (mg/l)

0.043

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

Total Suspended Solids

Copper
a

84

Mean (mg/l)

0.67

Median (mg/l)

0.61

Mean (mg/l)

16.8

Median (mg/l)

7.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0048

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

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

4-248

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-169

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)

0.20

0.35

--

322.47

263.92

14.84

49.25

0.83

67.34

0.04

0.06

--

105.65

133.55

7,006

18,164

315

6,988

24

17

--

10,827

11,328

44,896

11

30

--

529,444

133,902

1,362,536
---264
140,791
7,942
66,675
1,987
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

109.60

CSOs

3,653

34.54

Industrial

18.97

1,015

1423.77

Wetland

billion counts

2.22

--

373.13

Ultra Low

FC

--

Transportation

--

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

75,255

42.74

Pasture (C)

--

pounds

17.05

Pasture (B)

671.65

BOD

--

Industrial

--

Grass (D)

--

tons

Grass (C)

1675.76

TSS

Point Source

Grass (B)

pounds

Government /
Institution

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Forest

Crop (B)

Loads

Crop (D)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

41.93

51.77

28.61

--

13.06

15.07

1.30

0.05

--

0.37

1,613

1,363

196

--

184

64,873

184

0

--

14,266

TABLE 4-170
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

38%

--

--

--

0%

1%

8%

32%

1%

2%

0%

0%

--

7%

6%

1%

1%

1%

--

0%

TSS

62%

--

--

--

0%

2%

1%

5%

0%

6%

0%

0%

--

10%

12%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

55%

--

--

--

1%

3%

5%

13%

0%

5%

0%

0%

--

8%

8%

1%

1%

0%

--

0%

FC
58%
---0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
2%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

22%

6%

3%

0%

0%

--

1%

Loads

4-249

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-171

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.212

--

--

--

0.002

0.005

0.047

0.181

0.004

0.014

0.000

0.000

--

0.041

0.033

0.005

0.007

0.004

--

0.002

TSS

tons/acre

0.085

--

--

--

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.006

0.000

0.009

0.000

0.000

--

0.013

0.017

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

9.543

--

--

--

0.129

0.463

0.888

2.303

0.040

0.886

0.003

0.002

--

1.373

1.437

0.205

0.173

0.025

--

0.023

FC

billion counts/acre

172.779

--

--

--

0.034

17.853

1.007

8.455

0.252

5.693

0.001

0.004

--

67.137

16.980

8.226

0.023

0.000

--

1.809

Loads

Units

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-172
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

2481.88

0.01

2.53

34.40

23.25

67.27

569.54

2149.44

139.97

117.42

0.20

0.40

1.65

497.60

263.92

61.18

205.61

28.61

--

14.95

TSS

tons

994.75

0.00

1.27

13.44

3.03

29.85

22.66

74.35

3.38

72.15

0.04

0.07

0.25

163.03

133.55

21.99

5.16

0.05

--

0.43

BOD

pounds

111,457

0

133

2,446

1,383

5,750

10,694

27,421

1,278

7,487

24

20

72

16,707

11,328

2,354

5,414

196

--

211

0

31

351

360

221,624

12,122

100,658

8,053

48,099

11

35

147

816,987

133,902

94,663

732

0

--

16,334

FC

billion counts 2,017,985

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-250

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-173

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Ultra Low

0%

Transportation

1%

Residential

0%

Pasture (D)

0%

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

37%

Pasture (B)

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

9%

32%

2%

2%

0%

0%

0%

7%

4%

1%

3%

0%

--

0%

TSS

tons

65%

0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

1%

5%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

11%

9%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

55%

0%

0%

1%

1%

3%

5%

13%

1%

4%

0%

0%

0%

8%

6%

1%

3%

0%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

58%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

24%

4%

3%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-174
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.198

0.000

0.000

0.003

0.002

0.005

0.045

0.171

0.011

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.040

0.021

0.005

0.016

0.002

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.079

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.002

0.002

0.006

0.000

0.006

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.013

0.011

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

8.889

0.000

0.011

0.195

0.110

0.459

0.853

2.187

0.102

0.597

0.002

0.002

0.006

1.332

0.903

0.188

0.432

0.016

--

0.017

0.000

0.002

0.028

0.029

17.674

0.967

8.027

0.642

3.836

0.001

0.003

0.012

65.154

10.679

7.549

0.058

0.000

--

1.303

FC

billion counts/acre 160.932

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-251

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) 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 moderate. This assessment of flashiness suggests
that this reach experiences moderately normal increases and decreases in stream flow following
wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow moderately supports the reach‟s natural
aquatic life and habitat regime. There are nine assessed plant communities located within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The quality assessments of these plant
communities range from very poor to 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. The minimum
DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as
very good during the warm weather months. See 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 from Baseline TP loads, a 48% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 24% reduction
from Baseline TSS loads within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Underwood Creek assessment point area
(MN-14) are presented TABLE 4-175. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water
quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will
not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed 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 4-176 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-177 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-178 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-179 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-180 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-181 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on
a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 48% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and remain
moderate for the swimming season measure. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading
4-252

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good and TP from
moderate to good. The minimum DO concentrations would improve from good to very good and
the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather
months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability
and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on
water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the
assessment of flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) would
remain as moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and
flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-175
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Assessment
Point

Water Quality
Indicator

MN-14
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Underwood Creek
(annual)

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)

369

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

282

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

a

1,332

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

89

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

180

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

153

Mean (mg/l)

11.1

Median (mg/l)

11.2

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.057

Median (mg/l)

0.039
87

Mean (mg/l)

0.57

Median (mg/l)

0.52

Mean (mg/l)

12.7

Median (mg/l)
Copper

4,250

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

5.8

Mean (mg/l)

0.0037

Median (mg/l)

0.0010

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

4-253

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-176

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)

--

--

--

1.94

14.40

BOD

pounds

64,137

--

--

--

887

2,999

FC

billion
counts

710,290

--

--

--

231

68,345

76.79

0.16

0.04

--

303.21

225.88

10.96

35.39

0.62

41.06

0.03

0.01

--

85.25

99.48

5,702

14,419

259

4,644

24

3

--

9,972

9,195

4,269

34,734

1,077

18,277

1

0

--

278,753

66,805

SSOs

514.48

27.12

CSOs

tons

1,078.07

Industrial

TSS

292.54

Wetland

38.97

Ultra Low

14.90

Transportation

--

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

1,502.42

Pasture (B)

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

39.74

44.08

28.61

--

10.99

12.18

1.11

0.05

--

0.31

1,476

1,161

196

--

155

35,294

157

0

--

12,006

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-177
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Ultra Low

0%

Transportation

--

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

41%

Pasture (B)

Forest

pounds

Industrial

Crop (D)

TP

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

8%

29%

1%

2%

0%

0%

--

8%

6%

1%

1%

1%

--

0%

TSS

tons

63%

--

--

--

0%

2%

1%

4%

0%

5%

0%

0%

--

10%

12%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

56%

--

--

--

1%

3%

5%

13%

0%

4%

0%

0%

--

9%

8%

1%

1%

0%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

58%

--

--

--

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

23%

5%

3%

0%

0%

--

1%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-254

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-178

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

TP

pounds/acre

0.180

--

--

--

0.002

0.004

0.037

0.137

0.003

0.010

0.000 0.000

--

0.035

0.029

0.005

0.006

0.004

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.065

--

--

--

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.005

0.000 0.000

--

0.011

0.013

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

8.133

--

--

--

0.112

0.380

0.723

1.828

0.033

0.589

0.003 0.000

--

1.265

1.166

0.187

0.147

0.025

--

0.020

FC

billion counts/acre

85.361

--

--

--

0.029

8.429

0.541

4.404

0.137

2.318

0.000 0.000

--

33.957

8.471

4.295

0.020

0.000

--

0.000

Pasture (C)

Crop (C)

Loads

Pasture (B)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-179
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

2,226.68

--

0.32

--

20.12

60.74

444.46

1,640.71

136.98

81.59

0.16

0.04

--

463.58

225.88

55.74

197.20

28.61

--

12.88

TSS

tons

770.39

--

0.16

--

2.62

22.94

16.65

53.86

3.14

43.63

0.03

0.01

--

132.73

99.48

17.35

4.95

0.05

--

0.37

BOD

pounds

94,971

--

28

--

1,197

4,691

8,663

21,944

1,306

4,934

24

3

--

15,187

9,195

2,066

5,193

196

--

181

FC

billion counts

1,070,213

--

1

--

312

110,379

6,486

52,861

5,436

19,510

1

0

--

435,608

66,805

49,847

702

0

--

14,074

Loads

Units

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-255

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-180

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Transportation

0%

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

0%

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

--

Pasture (B)

Forest

40%

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

8%

29%

2%

1%

0%

0%

--

8%

4%

1%

4%

1%

--

0%

TSS

tons

66%

--

0%

--

0%

2%

1%

5%

0%

4%

0%

0%

--

11%

9%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

56%

--

0%

--

1%

3%

5%

13%

1%

3%

0%

0%

--

9%

5%

1%

3%

0%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

58%

--

0%

--

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

24%

4%

3%

0%

0%

--

1%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-181
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.178

--

0.000

--

0.002

0.005

0.035

0.131

0.011

0.007

0.000

0.000

--

0.037

0.018

0.004

0.016

0.002

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.061

--

0.000

--

0.000

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.000

--

0.011

0.008

0.001

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

7.574

--

0.002

--

0.095

0.374

0.691

1.750

0.104

0.393

0.002

0.000

--

1.211

0.733

0.165

0.414

0.016

--

0.014

FC

billion counts/acre

s85.348

--

0.000

--

0.025

8.803

0.517

4.216

0.434

1.556

0.000

0.000

--

34.739

5.328

3.975

0.056

0.000

--

1.122

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-256

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.12 Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-15 and MN-17)
This segment of the mainstem is located in the lower eastern portion of the Menomonee River
watershed. The reach within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area
(MN-15) flows southeasterly from the mainstem‟s confluence with the Little Menomonee River
for about three miles to a point just downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek. It
flows southerly under Hampton Avenue past the Harley-Davidson Woods, through the
Menomonee River Swamp-South, and into Currie Park which is located south of Capitol Drive
before changing direction and flowing southeasterly. The confluence with Grantosa Creek
occurs in Currie Park immediately west of Mayfair Road. Grantosa Creek flows through
enclosed conduit for slightly more than ½ mile of its length. Downstream of the confluence with
Grantosa Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem passes Mount Mary College and Blue
Mound Country Club before reaching the confluence with Underwood Creek. The Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains one known dam, drop structure or
other obstruction.
The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) encompasses 9.0 square
miles. The mainstem flows through the Menomonee River Parkway, which allows for a greater
riparian width. In general, the width exceeds 75 feet along half of the river within this assessment
point area. Portions of both the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN15) and (MN-17) are located in the city of Wauwatosa.
MN-15
The land use within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) is
predominantly transportation (34%). High-density residential land use (defined on following
table) makes up nearly 21% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space
land uses make up nearly 15% of the total land use in the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
assessment point area (MN-15) (Figure 4-71). Low-density residential along with institutional
and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the
remaining 30%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 32% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-182 presents the land uses within the
area.

4-257

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-182

LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

1.2

13.43%

1.9

21.31%

Commercial

0.3

3.14%

Institutional & Governmental

0.6

6.92%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

1.3

14.52%

Transportation

3.1

34.20%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.6

6.48%

Total

9.0

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.

4-258

76th St.

nd
Fo
D
u
c
La
A

n
to
le
pp

v.

A
v.
A

!

!

!

76th St.

!

M
U KK EE E
W AA U
M II LL W

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
!

!

MN-15

!
!

!

Bluemound Rd.

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

0

³

850 1,700
Feet

Figure 4-71
MN-15 Land Use
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). The municipalities include:
the cities of Brookfield, Milwaukee, and Wauwatosa as well as the village of Butler. Nearly
51% of the 9.0 square mile area is located within the city of Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee
occupies 37% of the area. The city of Brookfield and the village of Butler, together, occupy the
remaining 12%. The extent of the civil divisions within the MN-15 assessment point area is
presented in TABLE 4-183.
TABLE 4-183
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-15)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Brookfield

0.9

9.76%

City of Milwaukee

3.4

37.40%

City of Wauwatosa

4.5

50.69%

Village of Butler

0.2

2.15%

Total

9.0

100.00%

Civil Division

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 Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Menomonee River Lower
mainstem assessment point area (MN-15), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are
commercial land use (40%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (37%). The largest
contributors of FC are commercial (56%) and residential (24%) land uses. Commercial (58%)
and industrial (16%) land uses are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to
recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water
quality.
However, approximately 60% to 75% 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 Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15).
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 analyses, the concentrations of FC were
assessed as poor for both FC (annual measure) and FC (swimming season). During periods with
the highest flows, FC counts typically exceed the regulatory standard. During moist conditions,
FC counts still exceed the standard 75% of the time. As FC concentrations increase with
increased flows, nonpoint sources are attributed to elevated FC concentrations within the
4-260

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). See Figure 4-72, Figure 473, and Figure 4-74. Note: the black line on Figure 4-72 represents the cumulative number of
days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analysis of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP and TSS were
both assessed as moderate; the data suggest that both of these parameters are primarily attributed
to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be
associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that
carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO
concentrations. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good
during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-184. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-185 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-186 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-187 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
point areas associated with MN-1 through MN-14 are all located upstream of the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). TABLE 4-188 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-189 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown
for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-190 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.

4-261

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)
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 4-72

MN-15 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-73

MN-15 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Menomonee Main Stem – Reach 883
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 4-74

MN-15 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-184

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment
Point
MN-15 Lower
Mainstem
Menomonee River

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)

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

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Phosphorus

Total Suspended Solids

Copper

47
1,063
12
3,064
67

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

476
6

Mean (mg/l)

11.0

Median (mg/l)

11.1

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.063

Median (mg/l)

0.043

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

6,137

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

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

Baseline
Condition

84

Mean (mg/l)

0.55

Median (mg/l)

0.52

Mean (mg/l)

15.6

Median (mg/l)

5.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0057

Median (mg/l)

0.0023

4-265

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-185

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)

1.07

12.25

--

--

383

2,361

FC

billion counts

230.06

--

--

--

268.78

69.23

48.92

2.66

77.12

0.19

141.97

--

--

--

87.84

35.55

17.53

808

15,641

36

14,668

--

--

--

9,024

2,972

1,882

81,018

--

--

--

423,987

28,515

72,315

981,176
---46
90,196
929
56,978
224
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

SSOs

--

--

3.92

CSOs

--

59,631

1226.17

Industrial

--

pounds

45.34

Wetland

529.24

BOD

Ultra Low

27.62

Transportation

6.90

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

--

tons

Pasture (B)

Forest

1327.84

TSS

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

34.34

21.96

--

6.03

1.47

0.51

--

0.17

877

1,177

--

85

75

0

--

6,586

TABLE 4-186
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

40%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

37%

0%

7%

--

--

--

8%

2%

1%

1%

1%

--

0%

TSS

58%

--

--

--

0%

1%

0%

8%

0%

16%

--

--

--

10%

4%

2%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

54%

--

--

--

0%

2%

1%

14%

0%

13%

--

--

--

8%

3%

2%

1%

1%

--

0%

--

24%

2%

4%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

FC
56%
---0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
5%
--Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-266

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-187

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.231

--

--

--

0.001

0.005

0.008

0.214

0.001

0.040

--

--

--

0.047

0.012

0.009

0.006

0.004

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.092

--

--

--

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.013

0.000

0.025

--

--

--

0.015

0.006

0.003

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

10.389

--

--

--

0.067

0.411

0.141

2.725

0.006

2.556

--

--

--

1.572

0.518

0.328

0.153

0.205

--

0.015

FC

billion counts/acre

170.945

--

--

--

0.008

15.714

0.162

9.927

0.039

14.115

--

--

--

73.869

4.968

12.599

0.013

0.000

--

1.148

Loads

Units

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-188
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)

1948.61

875.65

401.22

SSOs

Pasture (D)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (B)

Industrial

Grass (D)

Grass (C)

1376.88 6611.02 264.04 1320.39 48.50 143.40 24.16

CSOs

183.33

Industrial

352.21 795.73 122.34 128.11

Wetland

9557.97

Ultra Low

pounds

Transportation

Units

TP

Point Source
Residential

Loads

Grass (B)

Government /
Institution

Forest

Crop (D)

Crop (C)

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

1078.02

1811.82

--

31.26

TSS

tons

3567.31

165.95 483.80

49.73

19.39

75.74

71.64

361.69

8.73

776.56

11.23 29.39

4.11

589.99

423.81

129.04

38.63

3.74

--

0.90

BOD

pounds

429,232

22,895 47,933

9,537

7,986

15,671

30,825

97,919

3,170

84,190

5,868 8,490 1,328

65,423

37,580

15,434

34,854

12,370

--

440

FC

billion
counts

5,602,995

2,634

1,307

1,187

497,161

30,464

310,150 17,349 382,906 2,227 12,798 2,396 2,234,461 325,097 393,544

3,446

0

--

34,159

9,362

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-267

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-189

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

35%

1%

3%

0%

0%

1%

5%

24%

1%

5%

0%

1%

0%

7%

3%

1%

4%

7%

--

0%

TSS

tons

52%

2%

7%

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

11%

0%

0%

0%

9%

6%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

46%

2%

5%

1%

1%

2%

3%

11%

0%

9%

1%

1%

0%

7%

4%

2%

4%

1%

--

0%

FC

billion
counts

57%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

23%

3%

4%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

Units

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-190
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.137

0.005

0.011

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.020

0.095

0.004

0.019

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.028

0.013

0.006

0.015

0.026

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.051

0.002

0.007

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.011

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

0.006

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.170

0.329

0.689

0.137

0.115

0.225

0.443

1.408

0.046

1.210

0.084

0.122

0.019

0.940

0.540

0.222

0.501

0.178

--

0.006

FC

billion
counts/acre

80.542

0.038

0.135

0.019

0.017

7.147

0.438

4.458

0.249

5.504

0.032

0.184

0.034

32.120

4.673

5.657

0.050

0.000

--

0.491

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-268

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15)
was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term
changes in stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as good in this area. This assessment
of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow
following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There are four assessed plant communities located in the Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant
communities range from poor 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. The minimum
and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months.
See 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 from Baseline TP loads, a 46% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 23% reduction
from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
assessment point area (MN-15). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-191. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed 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 4-192 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-193 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-194 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point areas associated with MN-1 through MN14 are all located upstream of the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area
(MN-15). TABLE 4-195 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4196 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-197
presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 46% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and
4-269

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

swimming season measures. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading would result in the
improvement of the assessments of TSS from moderate to very good and TP from moderate to
good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good
during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are
focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report
No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower
mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) would remain as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for
more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-191
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment
Point
MN-15
Menomonee
Mainstem

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

50

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

677

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

53

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

1,538

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

70

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

263

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

36

Mean (mg/l)

10.9

Median (mg/l)

11.0

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.059

Median (mg/l)

0.042
87

Mean (mg/l)

0.47

Median (mg/l)

0.44

Mean (mg/l)

12.5

Median (mg/l)
Copper

3,820

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

4.6

Mean (mg/l)

0.0049

Median (mg/l)

0.0022

4-270

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-192

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)

pounds

FC

billion counts

526,215

--

--

--

1.13

9.65

364

2,001

87

50,368

209.42

--

--

--

228.00

60.70

44.02

2.18

63.55

0.16

115.72

--

--

--

66.23

27.88

14.02

660

13,175

30

12,806

--

--

--

7,377

2,499

1,628

501

31,766

125

46,005

--

--

--

226,604

15,908

40,928

SSOs

BOD

--

3.11

CSOs

--

--

978.00

Industrial

--

--

35.10

Wetland

--

48,074

Ultra Low

396.25

Transportation

tons

24.65

Residential

TSS

6.51

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

--

Pasture (B)

--

Industrial

1,116.20

Grass (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (D)

TP

Point Source

Grass (B)

Crop (C)

Units

Government /
Institution

Crop (B)

Loads

Forest

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

32.95

21.96

--

6.03

1.45

0.51

--

0.17

843

1,177

--

85

101

0

--

6,586

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-193
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Loads

Units

TP

pounds

40%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

35%

0%

8%

--

--

--

8%

2%

2%

1%

1%

--

0%

TSS

tons

57%

--

--

--

0%

1%

0%

9%

0%

17%

--

--

--

9%

4%

2%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

53%

--

--

--

0%

2%

1%

15%

0%

14%

--

--

--

8%

3%

2%

1%

1%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

56%

--

--

--

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

5%

--

--

--

24%

2%

4%

0%

0%

--

1%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-271

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-194
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.193

--

--

--

0.001

0.004

0.006

0.170

0.001

0.036

--

--

--

0.039

0.011

0.008

0.006

0.004

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.069

--

--

--

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.011

0.000

0.020

--

--

--

0.012

0.005

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

8.376

--

--

--

0.063

0.349

0.115

2.295

0.005

2.231

--

--

--

1.285

0.435

0.284

0.147

0.205

--

0.015

Loads

Units

FC billion counts/acre 91.097 ---0.015
8.751
0.087
5.534
0.022
8.015
---39.299
2.772
7.097
0.018
0.000
-0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-195
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)

114.61 212.56

12.73 144.47 186.76

2,877.99

43.77

85.12

3.68

22.31

66.48

69.26

pounds

383,379

12,822 25,057

2,440

9,334

14,912

1,328 320,837

BOD
FC

billion counts 3,464,890

136

405

25

10.34

722.29

4.42

32,890

89,386

3,994

84,462

2,941 4,018 397

25,086

203,199 17,659 277,431

112

9.54
580

1.08
73

764.85

385.13

--

26.35

528.69

332.23

108.49

40.65

3.74

--

0.75

66,603

31,672

14,672

36,798

12,370

--

371

1,488,246 189,127 252,420

3,590

0

--

28,797

Industrial

2,004.23

Wetland

Pasture (D)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (B)

Industrial

299.53

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-272

Grass (D)

1,275.70 5,472.25 305.07 1,372.77 20.22 53.66 6.33

SSOs

8,821.56

tons

CSOs

pounds

Ultra Low

TP
TSS

Transportation

Units

Point Source
Residential

Loads

Grass (C)

Grass (B)

Government /
Institution

Forest

Crop (D)

Crop (C)

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

1,115.27 1,811.82

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-196

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Transportation

1%

Residential

0%

Pasture (D)

1%

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

0%

Pasture (B)

Forest

37%

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

5%

23%

1%

6%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

2%

5%

8%

--

0%

TSS

tons

55%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

1%

6%

0%

14%

0%

0%

0%

10%

6%

2%

1%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

46%

2%

3%

0%

1%

2%

4%

11%

0%

10%

0%

0%

0%

8%

4%

2%

4%

1%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

55%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

24%

3%

4%

0%

0%

--

0%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-197
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.127

0.002

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.003

0.018

0.079

0.004

0.020

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.029

0.011

0.006

0.016

0.026

--

0.000

TSS

tons/acre

0.041

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

5.511

0.184

0.360

0.035

0.134

0.214

0.473

1.285

0.057

1.214

0.042

0.058

0.006

0.957

0.455

0.211

0.529

0.178

--

0.005

FC

billion
counts/acre

49.807

0.002

0.006

0.000

0.019

4.612

0.361

2.921

0.254

3.988

0.002

0.008

0.001

21.393

2.719

3.628

0.052

0.000

--

0.414

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-273

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

MN-17
The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is located immediately
downstream of the confluence of Underwood Creek and the mainstem. The river flows
southeasterly past Hoyt Park and the Milwaukee County Grounds. It flows past the Harmonee
Avenue Bridge, a pedestrian bridge, and a CP Rail bridge within the city of Wauwautosa.
Within Hart Park, the river continues to flow southeasterly to the confluence with Honey Creek.
The riparian margin is generally greater than 75 feet wide due to the Menomonee River Parkway
and other park lands through which the river flows. The riparian width exceeds 75 feet along
over 65% of the river within this assessment point area. The Lower Menomonee River
maintstem assessment point area contains five known dams, drop structures, or other
obstructions.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Menomonee River Lower
mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is predominantly (25%) high-density residential
(defined on following table) (Figure 4-75). Transportation land use makes up nearly 23% of the
total land use while institutional and governmental land uses make up nearly 21% of the total
land use within the area. Parks and open space along the river corridor contribute to recreation,
natural areas, and open space make up nearly 20% of the total land use within the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). Low-density residential, agriculture,
manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 11%. Based on
an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 26% of the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) area is impervious. TABLE
4-198 presents the land uses within the area.
Downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
flows southeasterly for about two miles to 72nd Street. This downstream area encompasses 2.7
square miles and includes a portion of the Honey Creek tributary area.

4-274

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-198

LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.1

1.94%

0.2

7.96%

0.7

25.25%

Commercial

0.0

0.94%

Institutional & Governmental

0.6

20.76%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.5

19.96%

Transportation

0.6

22.74%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.0

0.45%

Total

2.7

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.

4-275

76th St.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
!

MN-17
!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

Greenfield Av.
LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

Civil Division

0

³

450 900
Feet

Figre 4-75
MN-17 Land Use
1,800

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The municipalities include the cities of
Milwaukee and Wauwatosa. Nearly 97% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the city of
Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 3% of the area. The extent of the
civil divisions within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is
presented in TABLE 4-199.
TABLE 4-199
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Milwaukee

0.1

2.86%

City of Wauwatosa

2.6

97.14%

Total

2.7

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 the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Lower Menomonee River
mainstem assessment point area (MN-17), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are CSOs
(32%) and SSOs (22%). The largest contributors of FC are CSOs (47%) and SSOs (31%).
Commercial land use (44%) and CSOs (17%) are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is
important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly
affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. As FC
concentrations increase with increased flows, nonpoint sources are attributed to elevated FC
concentrations at MN-17. See Figure 4-76, Figure 4-77, and Figure 4-78. Note: the black line
on Figure 4-76 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout
the year.
Detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed. The assessment of TP was poor.
Within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17), the
concentrations of TP are greatest at high and low flows which may indicate the presence of a
4-277

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps from noncontact cooling water). The high concentrations at high flows indicate that nonpoint sources
contribute to elevated TP concentrations.
The assessment of TSS concentrations was poor; TSS tends to increase with increasing flows.
This suggests that nonpoint sources contribute to suspended solids concentrations. The potential
sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or
re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm
weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-200. Note that this table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are unavailable. Note that concentrations in March samples (which include snow
melt and spring runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations in
samples would be expected to exceed March‟s chloride concentrations. It is difficult to assess
chloride trends without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is
not being actively applied, some amount is in a „reservoir‟ (sediment). This chloride is gradually
released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow
conditions, the concentration becomes diluted (Figure 4-79).
Actual water quality data are available through the MMSD‟s H2O Info website. Figure 4-80
presents conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for
long periods of time – meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment
point area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-81. The DO exhibits
similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0
mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very
low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet
weather-induced runoff or resuspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-82). The temperature
data are also within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-83).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-201 presents the Baseline
4-278

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-202 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-203 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Baseline
cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas (MN-1) through (MN-16), are
estimated. TABLE 4-204 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4205 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-206
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-279

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)
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 4-76

MN-17 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-77

MN-17 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
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 4-78

MN-17 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-200

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER
MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
Assessment
Point
MN-17
Menomonee River
Downstream of
Honey Creek

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)

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper
a

6,926
63
1,124
196
3,622

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

81

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

496

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

130

Mean (mg/l)

11.1

Median (mg/l)

11.1

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.111

Median (mg/l)

0.074

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

Baseline
Condition

66

Mean (mg/l)

1.13

Median (mg/l)

1.07

Mean (mg/l)

16.3

Median (mg/l)

6.0

Mean (mg/l)

0.0057

Median (mg/l)

0.0024

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

4-283

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
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 4-79

MN-17 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-80

MN-17 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-81

MN-17 MEASURED DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-82

MN-17 MEASURED TURBIDTY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-83

MN-17 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-201

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

--

--

4.77

28.40

12.51

302.85

1.79

3.49

0.25

0.53

--

62.67

3.14

15.65

6.75

SSOs

Government /
Institution

--

CSOs

Forest

225.59

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

463.84

783.73

546.93

TSS

tons

90.42

--

--

--

0.73

12.60

0.69

18.59

0.09

2.14

0.05

0.15

--

20.53

1.59

5.62

0.27

3.37

34.29

15.66

BOD

pounds

10,131

--

--

--

284

2,428

235

3,863

16

222

30

27

--

2,104

135

602

178

2,030

11,021

7,707

billion counts 183,423

--

--

--

30

93,558

266

14,182

103

1,429

10

43

--

102,891

1,591

24,217

14

0

888,741

597,651

FC

Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-202
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

9%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

12%

0%

0%

0%

0%

--

3%

0%

1%

0%

19%

32%

22%

Loads
TSS

44%

--

--

--

0%

6%

0%

9%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

10%

1%

3%

0%

2%

17%

8%

BOD

25%

--

--

--

1%

6%

1%

9%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

5%

0%

1%

0%

5%

27%

19%

FC

10%

--

--

--

0%

5%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

--

5%

0%

1%

0%

0%

47%

31%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-289

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-203

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

pounds/acre

0.173

--

--

--

0.004

0.022

0.010

0.233

0.001 0.003 0.000

0.000

--

0.048

0.002

0.012

0.005

0.357

0.603

0.421

tons/acre

0.070

--

--

--

0.001

0.010

0.001

0.014

0.000 0.002 0.000

0.000

--

0.016

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.003

0.026

0.012

BOD

pounds/acre

7.791

--

--

--

0.218

1.867

0.181

2.971

0.013 0.171 0.023

0.021

--

1.618

0.104

0.463

0.137

1.561

8.476

5.927

FC

billion
counts/acre

141.067

--

--

--

0.023

71.954

0.205

10.907

0.079 1.099 0.007

0.033

--

79.131 1.224

18.625

0.011

0.000

683.514

459.642

Units

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Crop (C)

TP
TSS

Loads

Grass (D)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-204
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)

TSS

265.80

tons

4251.46

165.95 483.80

49.73

20.88

112.39

74.00

435.13

9.22

807.84

11.29 29.60

BOD

pounds

505,587

22,895 47,933

9,537

8,607

22,720

31,911

123,182

3,351

87,474

FC

billion
counts

6,985,321

2,634

1,307

1,289

768,833

31,556

399,869 18,486 404,003 2,240 12,856 2,396

9,362

1427.07 8543.28 283.94 1371.91 48.84 144.12 24.16

Cumulative units are per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-290

783.73

586.43

7.52

34.29

16.79

35,398

15,366

11,021

8,263

3,507

0

2465.31

1039.11 441.52

4.11

759.37

501.26

143.55

39.28

5,908 8,526 1,328

82,772

44,598

16,985

408,025 455,898

3,086,400

Industrial

Wetland

Ultra Low

Residential

Pasture (D)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (B)

Industrial

Grass (D)

Grass (C)

Grass (B)

Forest

Crop (D)

Crop (C)

11258.23 352.21 795.73 122.34 138.41

SSOs

pounds

CSOs

TP

Point Source
Transportation

Units

Government /
Institution

Loads

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

1098.49 2472.86

888,741 640,820

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-205

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Pasture (B)

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

33%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

4%

25%

1%

4%

0%

0%

0%

7%

3%

1%

3%

7%

2%

2%

TSS

tons

53%

2%

6%

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

0%

10%

0%

0%

0%

10%

6%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

BOD

pounds

46%

2%

4%

1%

1%

2%

3%

11%

0%

8%

1%

1%

0%

8%

4%

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%

FC

billion
counts

49%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

22%

3%

3%

0%

0%

6%

5%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-206
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

0.005

0.010

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.018

0.110 0.004

0.018

0.001 0.002 0.000

0.032

0.013

0.006

0.014

0.032

0.010

0.008

Pasture (D)

Grass (B)

0.145

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

pounds/acre

Pasture (B)

Forest

TP

Industrial

Crop (D)

Units

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Loads

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TSS

tons/acre

0.055

0.002

0.006

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.006 0.000

0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.010

0.006

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

6.496

0.294

0.616

0.123

0.111

0.292

0.410

1.583 0.043

1.124

0.076 0.110 0.017

1.064

0.573

0.218

0.455

0.197

0.142

0.106

FC

billion
counts/acre

89.753

0.034

0.120

0.017

0.017

9.879

0.405

5.138 0.238

5.191

0.029 0.165 0.031

39.657

5.243

5.858

0.045

0.000

11.419

8.234

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-291

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17)
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 good. This assessment
of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow
following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reach‟s natural aquatic
life and habitat regime. There are two assessed plant communities within the Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The quality assessments of these
plant communities range from poor 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. The
minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm
weather months. See 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 35%
reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 54% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 27% reduction
from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
assessment point area (MN-17). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-207. This table also
reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance
for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the
given parameter discussed 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 4-208 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-209 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-210 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-211 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-212 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-213 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on
a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 54% reduction in FC loading and the 35% reduction in TP 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 and the assessment of TP would remain
4-292

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

poor. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the
assessments of TSS from poor to very good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations
would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020
water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments
in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards.
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) would remain unchanged as
good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under
Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-207
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-17)
Assessment
Point
MN-17
Lower
Menomonee
River Downstream of Honey
Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper
a

4,198

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

66

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

704

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

230

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

1,833

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

84

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

271

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

147

Mean (mg/l)

10.9

Median (mg/l)

11.0

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

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.105

Median (mg/l)

0.075

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

Year 2020
Condition

67

Mean (mg/l)

0.93

Median (mg/l)

0.89

Mean (mg/l)

13.2

Median (mg/l)

4.9

Mean (mg/l)

0.0049

Median (mg/l)

0.0022

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

4-293

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-208

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

203.22

--

--

--

4.11

23.13

10.21

242.05

1.44

3.17

0.18

0.39

--

52.36

2.77

15.19

5.23

463.84

489.14

82.70

TSS

tons

73.12

--

--

--

0.74

9.22

0.64

15.72

0.07

1.75

0.05

0.12

--

15.40

1.26

4.90

0.22

3.37

21.40

2.37

BOD

pounds

8,755

--

--

--

245

1,897

202

3,266

14

194

30

27

--

1,686

114

561

138

2,030

6,879

1,165

FC

billion counts

105,165

--

--

--

64

48,507

152

7,949

58

827

1

5

--

54,713

894

14,963

19

0

554,674

90,374

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-209
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

13%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

15%

0%

0%

0%

0%

--

3%

0%

1%

0%

29%

31%

5%

TSS

tons

49%

--

--

--

0%

6%

0%

10%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

10%

1%

3%

0%

2%

14%

2%

BOD

pounds

32%

--

--

--

1%

7%

1%

12%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

6%

0%

2%

1%

7%

25%

4%

FC

billion counts

12%

--

--

--

0%

6%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

--

6%

0%

2%

0%

0%

63%

10%

Loads

Units

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-294

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-210

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.156

--

--

--

0.003

0.018

0.008

0.186

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.040

0.002

0.012

0.004

0.357

0.376

0.064

TSS

tons/acre

0.056

--

--

--

0.001

0.007

0.000

0.012

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

--

0.012

0.001

0.004

0.000

0.003

0.016

0.002

BOD

pounds/acre

6.733

--

--

--

0.188

1.459

0.155

2.512

0.011

0.149

0.023

0.021

--

1.297

0.088

0.431

0.106

1.561

5.290

0.896

FC

billion counts/acre

80.880
---0.049
37.306
0.117
6.114
0.045 0.636 0.001 0.004
-42.078
0.688 11.508
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-211
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)

422.24

1,131.27 2,472.86

SSOs

880.77

CSOs

2,451.16

Industrial

6.33

Wetland

Ultra Low

Pasture (C)

Pasture (B)

Industrial

Grass (D)

Grass (C)

1,316.40 7,022.27 320.78 1,398.79 20.47 54.19

Transportation

255.26

Grass (B)

Forest

Crop (D)

Crop (C)

10,339.50 114.61 212.56 12.73 152.26

Residential

pounds

Point Source
Pasture (D)

Units

TP

Government /
Institution

Loads

Crop (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

489.14

116.78

TSS

tons

3,427.08

43.77

23.59

93.83

71.25

358.99

10.73

736.51

4.48

9.69

1.08

660.40

381.64

120.49

41.17

7.52

21.40

3.34

BOD

pounds

448,809

12,822 25,057 2,440 9,801

20,531

33,816

110,815

4,146

86,054

2,981 4,054

397

81,007

36,450

16,042

37,223

15,366

6,879

1,646

FC

billion
counts

4,211,565

459,748

25,703

253,657 18,290 283,873

1,933,455 224,376 287,983

3,648

0

136

85.12

405

3.68

25

1,449

Cumulative units are per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-295

113

586

73

554,674 127,615

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-212

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

1%

Residential

1%

Pasture (D)

0%

Pasture (C)

1%

Pasture (B)

Government /
Institution

0%

Industrial

Forest

35%

Grass (D)

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (C)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Point Source

Grass (B)

Crop (B)

Loads

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

5%

24%

1%

5%

0%

0%

0%

8%

3%

1%

4%

8%

2%

0%

TSS

tons

56%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

1%

6%

0%

12%

0%

0%

0%

11%

6%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

BOD

pounds

47%

1%

3%

0%

1%

2%

4%

12%

0%

9%

0%

0%

0%

8%

4%

2%

4%

2%

1%

0%

FC

billion counts

50%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

3%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

23%

3%

3%

0%

0%

7%

2%

Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-213
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE /
YEAR)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

TP

pounds/acre

0.133

0.001

0.003

0.000

0.002

0.003

0.017

0.090

0.004

0.018

0.000 0.001

0.000

0.031

0.011

0.005

0.015

0.032

0.006

0.002

TSS

tons/acre

0.044

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.005

0.000

0.009

0.000 0.000

0.000

0.008

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

Pasture (C)

Crop (C)

Loads

Pasture (B)

Crop (B)

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

BOD

pounds/acre

5.767

0.165

0.322

0.031

0.126

0.264

0.434

1.424

0.053

1.106

0.038 0.052

0.005

1.041

0.468

0.206

0.478

0.197

0.088

0.021

FC

billion counts/acre

54.114

0.002

0.005

0.000

0.019

5.907

0.330

3.259

0.235

3.647

0.001 0.008

0.001

24.843

2.883

3.700

0.047

0.000

7.127

1.640

Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-296

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

4.5.13 Honey Creek (Assessment Point MN-16)
Honey Creek is located in the southern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This
tributary flows northerly for about 7.5 miles before its confluence with the Menomonee River.
Honey Creek begins less than ½ mile south of the intersection of Loomis Road and Layton
Avenue. It flows northwesterly under Loomis Road, passes the south side of Edgewood
Elementary School and the east side of Greenfield High School. Honey Creek then flows
northerly beneath I-894/I-43 and then changes direction to flow northwesterly past the west side
of Armour Park. The creek continues to flow northwesterly beneath Forest Home Avenue. North
of I-894/I-43, the channel is concrete-lined. Honey Creek continues to flow northwesterly
towards McCarthy Park where it changes direction and flows northerly through an enclosed
conduit for approximately 2½ miles. The creek flows within the conduit beneath State Fair Park
before emerging north of I-94. Honey Creek then flows northerly past Wisconsin Lutheran High
School, Bluemound Road, and St. Jude‟s grade school before changing direction and flowing
northeasterly to its confluence with the Menomonee River mainstem. Honey Creek is
predominantly lined with concrete or enclosed in conduit. This assessment point area contains
15 dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Much of the riparian margin typically does not
exceed 25 feet; only 28% of the creek has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet.
The Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) encompasses about 10.2 square miles.
Downstream, it extends to a point that is located 4,400 feet upstream of Honey Creek's
confluence with the mainstem. This downstream point on Honey Creek is approximately located
at Wisconsin Avenue in the city of Wauwatosa.
The land use within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) is predominantly
transportation (31%) (Figure 4-84). High-density residential land use (defined on following
table) makes up nearly 30% of the total land use while low-density residential land uses makes
up nearly 21% of the total land use within the area. Recreation, natural areas, and open space
along with institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land
uses compose the remaining 18%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 30% of the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) is
impervious. TABLE 4-214 presents the land uses within the area.

4-297

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-214
LAND USE IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

2.1

20.74%

3.1

30.24%

Commercial

0.3

2.76%

Institutional & Governmental

0.5

4.91%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.9

9.07%

Transportation

3.2

30.98%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.1

1.30%

Total

10.2

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.

4-298

MN-15

!

!

!

MN-16

Bluemound Rd.

!

Greenfield Av.

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
W EE SS TT AA LL LL II SS

Loo

mis

Fo
r

es
t

Rd

.

Ho
m

e

Av
.

27th St.

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
GR
R EE EE N
N FF II EE LL D
D

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

0

³

850 1,700
Feet

Figre 4-84
MN-16 Land Use
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-16
assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Greenfield, Milwaukee,
Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Greendale. Nearly 35% of the 10.2 square
mile assessment point area is located within the city of West Allis. The cities of Milwaukee and
Greenfield occupy nearly 33 and 28% of the area, respectively. The city of Wauwatosa and the
village of Greendale, together, occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions
within the MN-16 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-215.
TABLE 4-215
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point Area
within Civil Division

City of Greenfield

2.9

28.40%

City of Milwaukee

3.4

33.49%

City of Wauwatosa

0.3

2.30%

City of West Allis

3.5

34.70%

Village of Greendale

0.1

1.11%

Total

10.2

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 in Honey Creek are TP, FC, and DO. Within this assessment point area, the largest
contributors to Baseline TP loads are grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (39%) and
commercial land use (36%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (51%) and
residential (32%) land uses. Commercial (63%) and residential (16%) land uses are the
predominant contributors of BOD which affects DO. It is important to recognize that land uses
directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16). 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The
measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceed the
regulatory standard. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC
concentrations within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) are primarily attributed to

4-300

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

nonpoint sources. See Figure 4-85, Figure 4-86, and Figure 4-87. Note: the black line on Figure
4-85 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analyses of DO and TP were also performed. The minimum DO concentrations were
assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of TP were assessed as moderate and the
data suggest that TP concentrations are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources.
In addition to the parameter of focus, TSS was also analyzed in detail. The TSS concentration
was assessed as very good and also appears to be attributed to nonpoint sources. The
relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended
solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load,
stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that the Honey Creek
assessment point area (MN-16) contains concrete-lined reaches; these processes likely make less
of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-216. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
Actual water quality data are available from the H20 Info website. Figure 4-88 presents
conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for long
periods of time – meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment point
area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-89. The DO exhibits similar
good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0 mg/l).
The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very low
TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet weather
induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-90). The temperature data are
also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-91).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-217 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-218 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-219 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-301

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)
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 4-85

MN-16 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM
CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-86

MN-16 MONTHLY FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Honey Creek – Reach 914
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 4-87

MN-16 FLOW BASED FECAL
COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-216

BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE HONEY CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Assessment
Point
MN-16
Honey Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

72

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

612

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

259

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

Copper
a

4,073

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

86

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

325

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

148

Mean (mg/l)

11.0

Median (mg/l)

10.7
97

Mean (mg/l)

0.074

Median (mg/l)

0.049

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

9,286

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

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

Baseline
Condition

84

Mean (mg/l)

0.77

Median (mg/l)

0.69

Mean (mg/l)

14.4

Median (mg/l)

7.2

Mean (mg/l)

0.0046

Median (mg/l)

0.0016

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

4-305

FIGURE 4-88

MN-16 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-89

MN-16 MEASURED DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-90

MN-16 MEASURED TURBIDITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

FIGURE 4-91

MN-16 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-217

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)

0.76

24.05

--

--

337

4,622

FC

billion counts

SSOs

--

--

CSOs

--

66,225

Industrial

--

pounds

Wetland

593.73

BOD

Ultra Low

54.07

Transportation

5.53

Residential

--

Pasture (D)

--

Pasture (C)

Government /
Institution

--

tons

Pasture (B)

Forest

1474.67

TSS

Industrial

Crop (D)

pounds

Grass (D)

Crop (C)

Units

TP

Grass (C)

Crop (B)

Loads

Point Source

Grass (B)

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

37.68

1629.42

18.12

48.02

0.09

0.19

--

454.04

160.32

24.65

13.73

197.20

--

8.25

1.67

54.85

0.41

29.14

0.02

0.05

--

148.84

75.86

8.89

0.37

0.40

--

0.24

851

21,399

165

3,062

10

9

--

15,245

6,883

948

367

965

--

116

19,668

3

15

--

749,049

81,337

38,138

46

0

--

9,010

1,198,903
---71
178,114
826
75,538
1,035
Units are mass or counts per year
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-218
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

36%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

39%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

11%

4%

1%

0%

5%

--

0%

TSS

63%

--

--

--

0%

3%

0%

6%

0%

3%

0%

0%

--

16%

8%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

55%

--

--

--

0%

4%

1%

18%

0%

3%

0%

0%

--

13%

6%

1%

0%

1%

--

0%

FC
51%
---0%
8%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

--

32%

3%

2%

0%

0%

--

0%

Loads

4-310

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-219

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Units

Transportation

Ultra Low

Loads

Government /
Institution

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.212

--

--

--

0.001

0.008

0.005

0.234

0.003

0.007

0.000

0.000

--

0.065

0.023

0.004

0.002

0.028

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.085

--

--

--

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.008

0.000

0.004

0.000

0.000

--

0.021

0.011

0.001

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

9.513

--

--

--

0.048

0.664

0.122

3.074

0.024

0.440

0.001

0.001

--

2.190

0.989

0.136

0.053

0.139

--

0.017

FC

billion
counts/acre

172.218

--

--

--

0.010

25.585

0.119

10.851

0.149

2.825

0.000

0.002

--

107.598

11.684

5.478

0.007

0.000

--

1.294

Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-311

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
The flashiness within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) 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 three assessed plant communities within the Honey
Creek assessment point area. The quality assessments of these areas range from poor to 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. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as
moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the warm weather
months. See 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 from Baseline TP loads, a 47% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 17% reduction
from Baseline BOD loads that are derived from the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN16). 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.
The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for this assessment point are presented in TABLE 4220. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table,
the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed 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 4-221 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-222 presents the Year
2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-223 presents the Year 2020 annual
pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Notwithstanding the 47% reduction in FC loading, the 16% reduction in TP loading, and the
17% reduction in BOD, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the
assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual measure and remain moderate for the
swimming season measure. The assessment of TP would improve from moderate to good and the
minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as moderate and the maximum DO
concentrations were assessed as good during the warm weather months. The assessment of TSS
would remain unchanged and very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments
4-312

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning
Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year
2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Honey Creek assessment
point area (MN-16) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail
on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-220
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE HONEY CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Assessment
Point
MN-16
Honey Creek

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)

75

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

338

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

294

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

Total Suspended Solids

88

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

178

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

153

Mean (mg/l)

11.0

Median (mg/l)

10.6

a

98

Mean (mg/l)

0.067

Median (mg/l)

0.046
85

Mean (mg/l)

0.70

Median (mg/l)

0.64

Mean (mg/l)

11.5

Median (mg/l)
Copper

1,882

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

4,864

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

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

Year 2020 Condition

5.7

Mean (mg/l)

0.0038

Median (mg/l)

0.0014

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

4-313

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-221

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

1,314.71

--

--

--

3.67

45.36

30.49

1,307.98

14.27

22.85

0.06

0.14

--

394.58

113.15

21.92

10.77

197.20

--

7.73

TSS

tons

475.97

--

--

--

0.55

18.14

1.35

43.73

0.32

12.47

0.02

0.04

--

116.31

48.16

7.10

0.30

0.40

--

0.22

BOD

pounds

56,675

--

--

--

223

3,722

724

18,163

137

1,399

10

9

--

12,717

4,664

809

287

965

--

109

FC

billion counts

641,510

--

--

--

57

90,403

466

42,509

573

5,615

1

2

--

390,496

34,354

20,601

39

0

--

8,443

Loads

Units

Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-222
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Transportation

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds

38%

--

--

--

0%

1%

1%

38%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

11%

3%

1%

0%

6%

--

0%

TSS

tons

66%

--

--

--

0%

3%

0%

6%

0%

2%

0%

0%

--

16%

7%

1%

0%

0%

--

0%

BOD

pounds

56%

--

--

--

0%

4%

1%

18%

0%

1%

0%

0%

--

13%

5%

1%

0%

1%

--

0%

FC

billion counts

52%

--

--

--

0%

7%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

--

32%

3%

2%

0%

0%

--

1%

Loads

Units

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-314

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-223

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)

Crop (B)

Crop (C)

Crop (D)

Forest

Government /
Institution

Grass (B)

Grass (C)

Grass (D)

Industrial

Pasture (B)

Pasture (C)

Pasture (D)

Residential

Ultra Low

Wetland

Industrial

CSOs

SSOs

Loads

Units

Transportation

Point Source

Commercial

Nonpoint Source

TP

pounds/acre

0.189

--

--

--

0.001

0.007

0.004

0.188

0.002

0.003

0.000

0.000

--

0.057

0.016

0.003

0.002

0.028

--

0.001

TSS

tons/acre

0.068

--

--

--

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.006

0.000

0.002

0.000

0.000

--

0.017

0.007

0.001

0.000

0.000

--

0.000

BOD

pounds/acre

8.141

--

--

--

0.032

0.535

0.104

2.609

0.020

0.201

0.001

0.001

--

1.827

0.670

0.116

0.041

0.139

--

0.016

FC

billion counts/acre

92.150
---0.008
12.986
0.067
6.106 0.082
0.807
0.000 0.000
-56.093
4.935
2.959
0.006
0.000
-0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A “--” indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-315

Watershed Restoration Plan
4.5.14

Menomonee River

Lower Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-18)

This portion of the lower Menomonee River mainstem is located in the southeast portion of the
watershed. The mainstem flows generally easterly and southerly for about three miles before
reaching the downstream limit of the Menomonee River watershed. This downstream limit is
located approximately 500 feet downstream of the 35th Street Viaduct. At this point, the
Menomonee River discharges to the Lake Michigan estuary.
The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area begins at Honey Creek‟s
confluence with the mainstem. The river flows through Hart Park passing beneath bridges at 70th
and 68th Streets. The river flows east passing north of Jacobus and Doyne Parks where portions
of the streambed in this area are composed of a bedrock channel. The Lower Menomonee River
mainstem flows beneath USH 41 and then passes the southwest corner of the Miller Brewery. At
the brewery, the river changes direction and flows southerly into Valley Park in the vicinity of
the Stadium Interchange. Other features in the area include Miller Park and the Stadium Bluff
Woods, which is a critical species habitat. The channel is concrete-lined from the Miller
Brewery downstream to the Stadium Interchange. Towards the south side of Miller Park, the
river changes direction and begins to flow easterly towards the 35th Street viaduct in the
Menomonee Valley. The riparian margin varies within this area but can generally be classified
as in the 26 to 50 feet wide category; only 6% of the river within this assessment point area has a
riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet.
The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) encompasses 6.2 square
miles and includes Woods Creek and its tributary area. Creek is either enclosed in a conduit or
lined with a concrete channel. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area
contains one known dam, drop structure or other obstruction. Most of the Lower Menomonee
River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) is located in the city of Milwaukee.
The land use within the assessment point area for the Lower Menomonee River mainstem
assessment point area (MN-18) is predominantly transportation (33%) (Figure 4-92). Highdensity residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 30% of the total land
use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 12% of the total
land use within the area. Institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, lowdensity residential, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis
of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 36% of the Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) assessment point area is
impervious. TABLE 4-224 presents the land uses within the area.

4-316

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 4-224
LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Land Use within
Assessment Point Area

0.0

0.00%

0.2

3.64%

1.8

29.31%

Commercial

0.2

2.70%

Institutional & Governmental

0.6

9.80%

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

0.7

11.93%

Transportation

2.1

33.38%

Manufacturing and Industrial

0.6

9.24%

Total

6.2

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.

4-317

76th St.

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
E
AU
UK
KE
EE
M II LL W
WA

nd
Fo
D
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

c
La

A

!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

MN-18
!

Greenfield Av.

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

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division

Land Use

Institutional and Governmental

Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodland and Open Lands

Low Density Residential

Transportation, Communication and Utilities

High Density Residential

Manufacturing and Industrial

Commercial

0

³

550 1,100
Feet

Figure 4-92
MN-18 Land Use
2,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-18
assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, and
West Allis as well as the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 53% of the 6.2 square mile area is
located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Wauwatosa occupies nearly 29% of the area.
The city of Wauwatosa and the village of West Milwaukee, together, occupy the remaining 18%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point
area (MN-18) is presented in TABLE 4-225.
TABLE 4-225
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)

Percent of Assessment Point
Area within Civil Division

City of Milwaukee

3.3

52.83%

City of Wauwatosa

1.8

28.79%

City of West Allis

0.5

7.88%

Village of West Milwaukee

0.6

10.50%

Total

6.2

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 in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Lower Menomonee River
mainstem assessment point area (MN-18), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are
industrial point sources (77%) and commercial land use (6%). The largest contributors of FC are
commercial land use (39%) and CSOs (31%). Commercial (51%) and industrial (14%) land uses
are the predominant source of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact
pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality.
However, approximately 75% 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 Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). 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 analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The
increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations are primarily
attributed to nonpoint sources within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point
area (MN-18). See Figure 4-93, Figure 4-94, and Figure 4-95. Note: the black line on Figure 493 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
4-319

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as poor. The concentrations of TP exceed the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline on nearly half of the
days over the year. Also, concentrations of TP are greatest at high and low flows. The higher
concentrations at these flow extremes may indicate the presence of a background source of
phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flow