You are on page 1of 349

Underwood Creek – Reach 905

Total Phosphorus
Flow Conditions

Planning Standard (0.1 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1.00

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

0.10

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Underwood Creek – Reach 905
Total Suspended Solids
Flow Conditions

Reference Concentration (17.2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1000

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Fact Sheet for Assessment Point MN-15

Assessment Point: MN-15
The following data are excerpts from multiple reports. While the same location in the
Menomonee River watershed is represented, the assessment point IDs differ. Throughout
the following data, Assessment Point MN-15 is also represented by:
o Reach 883
o Menomonee Mainstem

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
RG
UR
BU
RB
C
AR
DA
ED
CE

§
¦
¨
43

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
N
ON
UO
EQ
QU
ME

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

41
t
u
45
t
u

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

§
¦
¨
43

LIT TLE MENOMONEE RIVER

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

45
t
u
41
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
ND
EN
A LL E
G LL E
DA
E

LILLY CREEK

45
t
u

§
¦
¨
43

BUTLER DITCH

41
t
u
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
M
WA
AU
M II LL W
UK
KE
EE
E

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

§
¦
¨

LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER

43

UNDERWOOD CREEK

41
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DOUSMAN DITCH

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

o ff
S
SH
HA
A

94

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

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

41
t
u

HONEY CREEK

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N

§
¦
¨

45
t
u

94

§
¦
¨
894

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

§
¦
¨
43

³

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Combined Sewer Area
Civil Divisions

0

0.5

1
Miles

Watershed Map
2

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

"
)T

"
)T

45
t
u

M
"
)

G
"
)

Y
"
)
C
"
)

@
?
145

M
"
)

C
"
)

@
?
181

@
?
57

BR.

N.

M

PIG
EO
N

NO

Y
"
)

E

ME
NO
MO
.
NEE
BR

"
)
RIVER

41
t
u

NE

"
)F

RI
VE
R

MENOM
O

W.

45
t
u

@
?
167

@
?
167

Y
"
)

57

@
?
181

BAR

CREEK

K

175

@
?
145

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

LAC
du
COURS

ER

WIL LOW

FISH

RIV

Q
"
)

AY

"
)F

NOR-X
-W

@
?

ME

B
"
)

PP
"
)

PP
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff

G
"
)

G
DA
E
EN
A LL E
ND
G LL E

@
?
Y
"
)

V
"
)
VV
"
)

@
?

45
t
u
@
?

LILLY

74

S
"
)

S
"
)

57

100

SUS SEX

E
"
)

VV
"
)

§
¦
¨
43

"
)
YY

E
CR E

@
?
181

K
"
)

LINCOLN

BUTLER DITCH

"
)J
CREEK

Y
"
)

@
?
190

@
?

@
?

190

190

@
?

41
t
u

100

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E
M II LL W

PE

45
t
u

UN

ER
RIV

M
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
O
A
W
A RIVER
SA
OS
A TTMENOMONEE
WLOWER
UW
WA
AU

OD
RW O

E

RIV
ER

DE

UKE
WA

M
"
)

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DITCH

Y
"
)
JJ
"
)

J

ONE E
RIVER

K
EE
CR

DOUSMAN DITCH

"
)

43

MENO
M

TJ
"
)

§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
94

K

t
u
18

§
¦
¨

@
?
59

@
?

@
?
181

894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

AR
PL
PO

@
?
59

@
?

59

59

ER
RIV

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

@
?
100

O
"
)

D
"
)
Y
"
)

41
t
u

@ t
?
45
u
100

"
)
O

164

"
)I

"
)I

§
¦
¨
43

EK
CR E

W
IL

SO

N

U
"
)

Y
"
)
U
"
)

@
?

Y
NE

HONEY CREEK

EK

HO

ES
"
)

E
CR

"
)

NN

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
9

32

LYONS

"
)T

D
"
)

@
?

KINNICKINNIC

D
"
)

@
?

18
t
u

94

CRE
E

CREEK

A
A

41
t
u

18
t
u

DEER

FT
"
)

MILL

§
¦
¨

UNDERWOOD CREEK

FOX

DOUSMAN

57

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

@
?

@
?

@
?

@
?

190

164

K
EE
"
)

EE
"
)

K
"
)

JJ
"
)

F

CREEK

LILLY CREEK

"
)J

"
)J

W
"
)

145

74

E
WHIT

@
?

@
?

W
"
)

N
IA

ER
RIV

RI V ER

@
?
W
"
)

32

.
CR

E

ER

175

@
?

181

O NE

RIV

100

E

@
?

M

YY
"
)

@
?

WAUK
E
MIL

N

41
t
u

NEE
MO

Y
"
)

100

O

NO
ME

74

@
?

43

100

@
?

74

§
¦
¨

57

LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

CREEK

32

@
?

45
t
u

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

145

@
?

LITTLE

Q
"
)

V
"
)

VV
"
)

@
?
57

@
?

Q
"
)

@
?

LITTLE

LAKE

CH
AN
NE
L

BARK

W
"
)

IN
D

AMY
BELL
LAKE

32

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

ME
NO
MO
NE
E

175

@
?

E

@
?

G

VE
R

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

K

@
?

43

RI

167

CREEK

EE

E
CRE

N
MO

@
?

§
¦
¨

PIT
LAKE

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

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

36

N
"
)

@
?
24

§
¦
¨
94

@
?
38

§
¦
¨

CR.

894

Y
"
)

PA
RK

@
?
CREEK

"
)
Y

"
)I

@
?
OK

119

ES
"
)

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Civil Divisions

UPPER KELLY
LAKE
LOWER KELLY
LAKE

@
?
24

³
0 2,600 5,200
Feet

Aerial Map
10,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October, 14, 2008

45
t
u

MN-1

§
¦
¨
43

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

MN-1

!

MN-3
41
t
u

MN-2

!!

MN-3

MN-10

MN-2

45
t
u

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 E
E
DA
ND
EN
A LL E

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
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
UK
KE
EE
WA
E
M II LL W
45
t
u

MN-13

MN-14
MN-13

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

!

43

!

§
¦
¨

!
!
MN-16 !
MN-17

MN-17
MN-14

94

§
¦
¨

MN-15
41
t
u

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

MN-18

94

A
A

18
t
u

! MN-18

§
¦
¨

18
t
u

894

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

41
t
u

MN-16

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
45
t
u

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

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨
894

§
¦
¨
43

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions

³
0 2,5005,000
Feet

MN Watershed
Model Reach Tributary Area
10,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

76th St.

nd
Fo
u
D
c
La
v.
A

n
to
le
pp
A
A
v.

!

!
!

76th St.

!

!

M
M II L

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

!

MN-15

!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

³

LEGEND

!
"
"

#

Assessment Points

Watersheds

CSO

Assessment Point Basins

SSO

Water

NCCW

Waterbodies

0

Civil Division

850 1,700
Feet

Assessment Point
Map: MN-15
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

76th St.

nd
Fo
u
D
c
La
v.
A

n
to
le
pp
A
A
v.

!

!
!

76th St.

!

!

M
M II L

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

!

MN-15

!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

³

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

0

850 1,700

Civil Division

Feet

Land Use
Map: MN-15
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

Menomonee River Standards/Targets
Constituent

Measure

Standard/Target

Geometric Mean Standard

200 counts/100 ml

Fecal Coliform

Not to Exceed Standard

400 counts/100 ml

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Minimum Concentration Standard

5 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

USGS Median TSS Reference Concentration (estimated
background concentration)

17.2 mg/l

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Flashiness

Planning Guideline
Richards Baker Flashiness Index (quantifies the frequency
and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow; the index
ranges from 0 - 2, with 0 being constant flow)

0.1 mg/l

indicator only

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan Fact Sheet
MN-15, Reach 883, Menomonee Mainstem
Data resulting from model runs:

Figure
Flashiness index

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
The Flashiness Index quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The index ranges from 0
Good

Dissolved oxygen
v. days per year
Fecal coliform v.
days per year

Good

Phosphorus v.
days per year
Suspended solids
v. days per year

Good

Monthly
dissolved oxygen
Monthly fecal
coliform

Very Good to
Good
Moderate to Poor

Monthly
phosphorus
Monthly
suspended solids

Good

Variable (some
good, some bad)

Good

Good

to 2, with 0 being constant flow. The flashiness is reasonable at this location.
Typically, aquatic communities need 5 mg/l or more of dissolved oxygen to survive. Concentrations at this site are
normally higher than this level.
For recreational uses, lower fecal coliform counts (a measure of bacteria) are better (preferably under 400 counts / 100ml).
The counts on majority of the days are either ‘below 400’ or ‘above 5,000’. A goal may be to determine the conditions
that create the ‘above 5,000’ days and discourage recreational use on these days. An additional goal could be to decrease
fecal coliform loads in order to increase the number of days that have ‘below 400’ counts.
Phosphorus is a nutrient that can lead to increased growth of algae. The concentrations on most of the days are at or below
the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline. Throughout the year, the phosphorus concentrations do not exceed 0.3 mg/l on any day
Suspended solids cause water to become cloudy and aesthetically unpleasant. They can clog the gills of fish and
invertebrates, make feeding difficult, and lead to sediment deposition (poor habitat). The concentrations are less than 25
mg/l on most of the days, but the concentrations exceed 100 mg/l on some of the days.
It is natural for dissolved oxygen concentrations to decline during warmer months due to decreased solubility.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, notice that the median and 75th percentile values
decline substantially during the summer and early fall. This may be related to the die-off of bacteria. Conditions are
particularly poor in March and are likely related to snow melt. Also note that the summer accounts for many of the
‘below 400’ days while the winter has many of the ‘above 5,000’ days.
Phosphorus concentrations are greatest in March and likely related to snow-melt. The 75th percentiles decline slightly in
the summer and early fall. This is likely related to uptake by plants during the growing season.
Suspended solids concentrations are below the reference concentration most of the time. The majority of the higher
concentrations are likely related to larger rain or snow melt events that disturb bare soil. Winter has lower concentrations
due to a number of factors including frozen conditions, decreased construction activities, and low-impact storms (snow vs.
rain).

Figure
Dissolved oxygen
by flow

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Note that dissolved oxygen concentrations decline slightly during low flows. This is likely due to a combination of
Good

Fecal coliform by
flow

Poor

Phosphorus by
flow

Good to Moderate

Suspended solids
by flow

Good

decreased water agitation and higher temperatures (low flow conditions are often associated with the warm summer
months).
Generally, a pollutant that is present at high concentrations during high flows and low concentrations during low flows
(fecal coliform, in this case) is attributed primarily to non-point sources. Infrequent sewer overflows (once every 2-5
years) would only contribute during the high flows when substantial non-point loads are already present. During periods
with the highest flows, fecal coliform counts exceed the regulatory standard; during moist conditions, fecal coliform
counts exceed the standard 75% of the time. During low flows, the standard is met over 75% of the time. These
conditions would be the safest time for recreational use (boating, wading, swimming).
Concentrations are greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline about 50% of the
time during the highest flows. This suggests that phosphorus sources are primarily non-point. The similarities between
the phosphorus and suspended solids data suggest that the phosphorus may be associated with suspended sediment.
The concentrations of suspended solids increase with increased flows, suggesting contributions from non-point sources.
All of the instances when the concentration exceeds the reference occur at the moist-to-high flow conditions. The
suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream
sediments.

Flashiness Index

Reach

Description

Richards Baker Flashiness
Index

883

Menomonee Main Stem

0.46

Average Daily Flow
Menomonee Main Stem (883)

AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (CFS)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Existing Water Quality Data

Assessment
Point
MN-15
Menomonee
Mainstem

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

Condition
Existing

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

Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)

400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>10

9-10

8-9

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

0-1

Average DO (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

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)

280

240

200

160

120

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)
400

360

320

80

40

0

>0.5

0.45-0.5

0.4-0.45

0.35-0.4

0.3-0.35

0.25-0.3

0.2-0.25

0.15-0.2

0.1-0.15

0.05-0.1

0-0.05

Average TP (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>200

175-200

150-175

125-150

100-125

75-100

50-75

25-50

0-25

Average TSS (mg/L)

Menomonee Main Stem – Reach 883
Dissolved Oxygen
Flow Conditions

Regulatory Standard (5 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

100

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

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

Concentration (cfu/100 mL)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Menomonee Main Stem – Reach 883
Total Phosphorus
Flow Conditions

Planning Standard (0.1 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1.00

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

0.10

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Menomonee Main Stem – Reach 883
Total Suspended Solids
Flow Conditions

Reference Concentration (17.2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1000

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Fact Sheet for Assessment Point MN-16

Assessment Point: MN-16
The following data are excerpts from multiple reports. While the same location in the
Menomonee River watershed is represented, the assessment point IDs differ. Throughout
the following data, Assessment Point MN-16 is also represented by:
o Reach 914
o Honey Creek

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
RG
UR
BU
RB
C
AR
DA
ED
CE

§
¦
¨
43

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
N
ON
UO
QU
EQ
ME

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

41
t
u
45
t
u

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

§
¦
¨
43

LIT TLE MENOMONEE RIVER

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

45
t
u
41
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
G LL E
EN
ND
DA
A LL E
E

LILLY CREEK

45
t
u

§
¦
¨
43

BUTLER DITCH

41
t
u
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
M
M II LL W
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
SA
OS
A
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

§
¦
¨

LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER

43

UNDERWOOD CREEK

41
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DOUSMAN DITCH

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

o ff
S
SH
HA
A

94

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

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

41
t
u

HONEY CREEK

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N

§
¦
¨

45
t
u

94

§
¦
¨
894

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

§
¦
¨
43

³

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Combined Sewer Area
Civil Divisions

0

0.5

1
Miles

Watershed Map
2

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

"
)T

"
)T

45
t
u

M
"
)

G
"
)

Y
"
)
C
"
)

@
?
145

M
"
)

C
"
)

@
?
181

@
?
57

BR.

N.

M

PIG
EO
N

NO

Y
"
)

E

ME
NO
MO
.
NEE
BR

"
)
RIVER

41
t
u

NE

"
)F

RI
VE
R

MENOM
O

W.

45
t
u

@
?
167

@
?
167

Y
"
)

57

@
?
181

BAR

CREEK

K

175

@
?
145

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

LAC
du
COURS

ER

WIL LOW

FISH

RIV

Q
"
)

AY

"
)F

NOR-X
-W

@
?

ME

B
"
)

PP
"
)

PP
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff

G
"
)

G
DA
E
EN
A LL E
ND
G LL E

@
?
Y
"
)

V
"
)
VV
"
)

@
?

45
t
u
@
?

LILLY

74

S
"
)

S
"
)

57

100

SUS SEX

E
"
)

VV
"
)

§
¦
¨
43

"
)
YY

E
CR E

@
?
181

K
"
)

LINCOLN

BUTLER DITCH

"
)J
CREEK

Y
"
)

@
?
190

@
?

@
?

190

190

@
?

41
t
u

100

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E
M II LL W

PE

45
t
u

UN

ER
RIV

M
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
O
A
W
A RIVER
SA
OS
A TTMENOMONEE
WLOWER
UW
WA
AU

OD
RW O

E

RIV
ER

DE

UKE
WA

M
"
)

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DITCH

Y
"
)
JJ
"
)

J

ONE E
RIVER

K
EE
CR

DOUSMAN DITCH

"
)

43

MENO
M

TJ
"
)

§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
94

K

t
u
18

§
¦
¨

@
?
59

@
?

@
?
181

894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

AR
PL
PO

@
?
59

@
?

59

59

ER
RIV

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

@
?
100

O
"
)

D
"
)
Y
"
)

41
t
u

@ t
?
45
u
100

"
)
O

164

"
)I

"
)I

§
¦
¨
43

EK
CR E

W
IL

SO

N

U
"
)

Y
"
)
U
"
)

@
?

Y
NE

HONEY CREEK

EK

HO

ES
"
)

E
CR

"
)

NN

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
9

32

LYONS

"
)T

D
"
)

@
?

KINNICKINNIC

D
"
)

@
?

18
t
u

94

CRE
E

CREEK

A
A

41
t
u

18
t
u

DEER

FT
"
)

MILL

§
¦
¨

UNDERWOOD CREEK

FOX

DOUSMAN

57

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

@
?

@
?

@
?

@
?

190

164

K
EE
"
)

EE
"
)

K
"
)

JJ
"
)

F

CREEK

LILLY CREEK

"
)J

"
)J

W
"
)

145

74

E
WHIT

@
?

@
?

W
"
)

N
IA

ER
RIV

RI V ER

@
?
W
"
)

32

.
CR

E

ER

175

@
?

181

O NE

RIV

100

E

@
?

M

YY
"
)

@
?

WAUK
E
MIL

N

41
t
u

NEE
MO

Y
"
)

100

O

NO
ME

74

@
?

43

100

@
?

74

§
¦
¨

57

LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

CREEK

32

@
?

45
t
u

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

145

@
?

LITTLE

Q
"
)

V
"
)

VV
"
)

@
?
57

@
?

Q
"
)

@
?

LITTLE

LAKE

CH
AN
NE
L

BARK

W
"
)

IN
D

AMY
BELL
LAKE

32

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

ME
NO
MO
NE
E

175

@
?

E

@
?

G

VE
R

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

K

@
?

43

RI

167

CREEK

EE

E
CRE

N
MO

@
?

§
¦
¨

PIT
LAKE

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

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

36

N
"
)

@
?
24

§
¦
¨
94

@
?
38

§
¦
¨

CR.

894

Y
"
)

PA
RK

@
?
CREEK

"
)
Y

"
)I

@
?
OK

119

ES
"
)

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Civil Divisions

UPPER KELLY
LAKE
LOWER KELLY
LAKE

@
?
24

³
0 2,600 5,200
Feet

Aerial Map
10,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October, 14, 2008

45
t
u

MN-1

§
¦
¨
43

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

MN-1

!

MN-3
41
t
u

MN-2

!!

MN-3

MN-10

MN-2

45
t
u

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
DA
E
EN
A LL E
ND
G LL E

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
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E
M II LL W
45
t
u

MN-13

MN-14
MN-13

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
WA
AU

!

43

!

§
¦
¨

!
!
MN-16 !
MN-17

MN-17
MN-14

94

§
¦
¨

MN-15
41
t
u

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

MN-18

94

A
A

18
t
u

! MN-18

§
¦
¨

18
t
u

894

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

41
t
u

MN-16

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
45
t
u

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

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨
894

§
¦
¨
43

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions

³
0 2,5005,000
Feet

MN Watershed
Model Reach Tributary Area
10,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

!
!
!

MN-16
Bluemound Rd.
!

Greenfield Av.

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

Loo
m

Fo
r

is
Rd
.

es
tH
om
e

Av
.

27th St

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

³

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points

Watersheds

"
"

CSO

Assessment Point Basins

SSO

Water

#

NCCW

Waterbodies
Civil Division

0

850 1,700
Feet

Assessment Point
Map: MN-16
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

!
!
!

MN-16
Bluemound Rd.
!

Greenfield Av.

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

Loo
m

Fo
r

is
Rd
.

es
tH
om
e

Av
.

27th St

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

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

0

³

850 1,700

Civil Division

Feet

Land Use
Map: MN-16
3,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

Menomonee River - Variance Standards/Targets
Constituent

Measure

Standard/Target
1

Variance Standard - Geometric mean not to exceed
Fecal Coliform

1,000 counts/100 ml
1

Variance Standard - Less than 10% of all samples/month
1

2,000 counts/100 ml

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Variance Standard - Minimum Concentration

2 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

USGS Median TSS Reference Concentration (estimated
background concentration)

17.2 mg/l

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Flashiness
1

Planning Guideline
Richards Baker Flashiness Index (quantifies the frequency
and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow; the index
ranges from 0 - 2, with 0 being constant flow)

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

0.1 mg/l

indicator only

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan Fact Sheet
MN-16, Reach 914, Honey Creek
Data resulting from model runs:

Figure
Flashiness index

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Good to Moderate The Flashiness Index quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The index ranges from 0

Dissolved oxygen
v. days per year
Fecal coliform v.
days per year

Very Good to
Good
Variable (some
good, some bad)

Phosphorus v.
days per year

Good

Suspended solids
v. days per year

Very Good to
Good

Monthly
dissolved oxygen
Monthly fecal
coliform

Very Good to
Good
Moderate

Monthly
phosphorus

Moderate

Monthly
suspended solids

Very Good

to 2, with 0 being constant flow. The flashiness is slightly high at this location.
Typically, aquatic communities need 5 mg/l or more of dissolved oxygen to survive. Concentrations at this site are
consistently above this level as well as the variance standard of 2 mg/l.
For recreational uses, lower fecal coliform counts (a measure of bacteria) are better (preferably under 400 counts / 100ml).
The counts on majority of the days are either ‘below 400’ or ‘above 5,000’. A potential goal in this case may be to
determine the conditions that create the ‘above 5,000’ days and discourage recreational use on days that meet these
conditions. An additional goal could be to find ways to decrease fecal coliform loads in order to increase the number of
days that have ‘below 400’ counts.
Phosphorus is a nutrient that can lead to increased growth of algae. The concentrations on most of the days are at or
below the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline. Throughout the year, the phosphorus concentration does not exceed 0.35 mg/l on
any day.
Suspended solids cause water to become cloudy, which is aesthetically unpleasant. They can also clog the gills of fish and
invertebrates, make feeding difficult, and lead to sediment deposition (poor habitat). The concentrations are less than 25
mg/l on most of the days.
Note the lower dissolved oxygen concentrations during the summer. This is normal due to the decreased solubility of
oxygen in warmer water.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, notice that the median values decline during the
summer swimming season. This may be related to the die-off of bacteria due to solar radiation. Also note that the
summer accounts for many of the ‘below 400’ days mentioned above while the winter has many of the ‘above 5,000’
days.
While the ranges of concentrations are fairly consistent throughout the year, note that the median concentration increases
in March. This may be related to snow melt. Also, concentrations are more consistent and the 75-95% group is generally
lower during the late spring, summer, and early fall. This may be related, in part, to uptake by plants during the growing
season and the release of phosphorus from sediments and decomposing organic matter.
Suspended solids concentrations are relatively low year-round and lower during the winter months. This is probably
linked to a number of factors including frozen conditions, decreased construction activities, and low-impact storms (snow
doesn’t pound the soil like rain). In addition, the concrete-lined channel limits the amount of in-stream erosion.

Figure
Dissolved oxygen
by flow

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Note that the dissolved oxygen concentration declines during low flows (though still well above the variance standard).
Good

Fecal coliform by
flow

Moderate to Poor

Phosphorus by
flow

Moderate

Suspended solids
by flow

Good

This is likely due to a combination of decreased water agitation and higher temperatures (low flow conditions are often
associated with the warm summer months).
Generally, a pollutant that is present at high concentrations during high flows and low concentrations during low flows
(fecal coliform, in this case) is attributed primarily to non-point sources. The infrequent sewer overflows (once every 2-5
years) would only contribute during the high flows when substantial non-point sources are already present. Note that
during any period with the highest flows, fecal coliform counts exceed the regulatory variance standard. During dry
conditions, the variance standard is met 75% of the time and during low flows, the standard is met consistently. This
would be the safest time for any recreational uses (boating, swimming, wading, etc.), although the amount of water in the
stream would most likely limit recreational uses to wading.
Concentrations are greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 75% of
the time at the highest flows. This suggests phosphorus loads are originating primarily from non-point sources. The
similarities between the phosphorus and suspended solids data suggest that the phosphorus may be associated with
suspended sediment.
The concentrations of suspended solids increase with increased flows, suggesting contributions from non-point sources.
The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from stream bank erosion, or re-suspended
stream sediments. Note that this site is located downstream of some concrete-lined reaches within the watershed. As a
result, upstream activities such as stream bank erosion and re-suspension of stream sediments likely make less of a
contribution to suspended sediment loads at this site compared to sites that are situated downstream of natural reaches that
experience these activities.

Flashiness Index

Reach

Description

Richards Baker Flashiness Index

914

Honey Creek

0.83

Average Daily Flow
Honey Creek (914)

AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (CFS)

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Existing Water Quality Data

Assessment
Point
MN-16
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)

5,659

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

80

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

492

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

296

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,660

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

90

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

361

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

150

Mean (mg/l)

6.6

Median (mg/l)

6.3

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)1

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.052

Median (mg/l)

0.031

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

88

Total Nitrogen

Mean (mg/l)

0.66

Median (mg/l)

0.67

Total Suspended Solids

Mean (mg/l)

8.5

Median (mg/l)

5.0

Copper

1

Condition
Existing

Mean (mg/l)

0.0036

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)

400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>10

9-10

8-9

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

0-1

Average DO (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

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)

Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>0.5

0.45-0.5

0.4-0.45

0.35-0.4

0.3-0.35

0.25-0.3

0.2-0.25

0.15-0.2

0.1-0.15

0.05-0.1

0-0.05

Average TP (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>200

175-200

150-175

125-150

100-125

75-100

50-75

25-50

0-25

Average TSS (mg/L)

Honey Creek – Reach 914
Dissolved Oxygen
Flow Conditions

Special Variance Regulatory Standard (2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

100

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Honey Creek – Reach 914
Fecal Coliform
Special Variance (2000 cfu/100 mL)

Flow Conditions

Box & Whiskers

1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Dry
Conditions

Low
Flows

Concentration (cfu/100 mL)

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Honey Creek – Reach 914
Total Phosphorus
Flow Conditions

Planning Standard (0.1 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1.00

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

0.10

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Honey Creek – Reach 914
Total Suspended Solids
Flow Conditions

Reference Concentration (17.2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1000

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Fact Sheet for Assessment Point MN-17

Assessment Point: MN-17
The following data are excerpts from multiple reports. While the same location in the
Menomonee River watershed is represented, the assessment point IDs differ. Throughout
the following data, Assessment Point MN-17 is also represented by:
o Reach 908
o North 70th Street
o RI-09
o Menomonee River Downstream of Honey Creek

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
RG
UR
BU
RB
C
AR
DA
ED
CE

§
¦
¨
43

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
N
ON
UO
EQ
QU
ME

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

41
t
u
45
t
u

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

§
¦
¨
43

LIT TLE MENOMONEE RIVER

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

45
t
u
41
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
ND
EN
A LL E
G LL E
DA
E

LILLY CREEK

45
t
u

§
¦
¨
43

BUTLER DITCH

41
t
u
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
M
WA
AU
M II LL W
UK
KE
EE
E

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

§
¦
¨

LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER

43

UNDERWOOD CREEK

41
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DOUSMAN DITCH

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

o ff
S
SH
HA
A

94

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

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

41
t
u

HONEY CREEK

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N

§
¦
¨

45
t
u

94

§
¦
¨
894

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

§
¦
¨
43

³

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Combined Sewer Area
Civil Divisions

0

0.5

1
Miles

Watershed Map
2

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

"
)T

"
)T

45
t
u

M
"
)

G
"
)

Y
"
)
C
"
)

@
?
145

M
"
)

C
"
)

@
?
181

@
?
57

BR.

N.

M

PIG
EO
N

NO

Y
"
)

E

ME
NO
MO
.
NEE
BR

"
)
RIVER

41
t
u

NE

"
)F

RI
VE
R

MENOM
O

W.

45
t
u

@
?
167

@
?
167

Y
"
)

57

@
?
181

BAR

CREEK

K

175

@
?
145

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

LAC
du
COURS

ER

WIL LOW

FISH

RIV

Q
"
)

AY

"
)F

NOR-X
-W

@
?

ME

B
"
)

PP
"
)

PP
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff

G
"
)

G
DA
E
EN
A LL E
ND
G LL E

@
?
Y
"
)

V
"
)
VV
"
)

@
?

45
t
u
@
?

LILLY

74

S
"
)

S
"
)

57

100

SUS SEX

E
"
)

VV
"
)

§
¦
¨
43

"
)
YY

E
CR E

@
?
181

K
"
)

LINCOLN

BUTLER DITCH

"
)J
CREEK

Y
"
)

@
?
190

@
?

@
?

190

190

@
?

41
t
u

100

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E
M II LL W

PE

45
t
u

UN

ER
RIV

M
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
O
A
W
A RIVER
SA
OS
A TTMENOMONEE
WLOWER
UW
WA
AU

OD
RW O

E

RIV
ER

DE

UKE
WA

M
"
)

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DITCH

Y
"
)
JJ
"
)

J

ONE E
RIVER

K
EE
CR

DOUSMAN DITCH

"
)

43

MENO
M

TJ
"
)

§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
94

K

t
u
18

§
¦
¨

@
?
59

@
?

@
?
181

894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

AR
PL
PO

@
?
59

@
?

59

59

ER
RIV

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

@
?
100

O
"
)

D
"
)
Y
"
)

41
t
u

@ t
?
45
u
100

"
)
O

164

"
)I

"
)I

§
¦
¨
43

EK
CR E

W
IL

SO

N

U
"
)

Y
"
)
U
"
)

@
?

Y
NE

HONEY CREEK

EK

HO

ES
"
)

E
CR

"
)

NN

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
9

32

LYONS

"
)T

D
"
)

@
?

KINNICKINNIC

D
"
)

@
?

18
t
u

94

CRE
E

CREEK

A
A

41
t
u

18
t
u

DEER

FT
"
)

MILL

§
¦
¨

UNDERWOOD CREEK

FOX

DOUSMAN

57

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

@
?

@
?

@
?

@
?

190

164

K
EE
"
)

EE
"
)

K
"
)

JJ
"
)

F

CREEK

LILLY CREEK

"
)J

"
)J

W
"
)

145

74

E
WHIT

@
?

@
?

W
"
)

N
IA

ER
RIV

RI V ER

@
?
W
"
)

32

.
CR

E

ER

175

@
?

181

O NE

RIV

100

E

@
?

M

YY
"
)

@
?

WAUK
E
MIL

N

41
t
u

NEE
MO

Y
"
)

100

O

NO
ME

74

@
?

43

100

@
?

74

§
¦
¨

57

LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

CREEK

32

@
?

45
t
u

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

145

@
?

LITTLE

Q
"
)

V
"
)

VV
"
)

@
?
57

@
?

Q
"
)

@
?

LITTLE

LAKE

CH
AN
NE
L

BARK

W
"
)

IN
D

AMY
BELL
LAKE

32

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

ME
NO
MO
NE
E

175

@
?

E

@
?

G

VE
R

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

K

@
?

43

RI

167

CREEK

EE

E
CRE

N
MO

@
?

§
¦
¨

PIT
LAKE

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

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

36

N
"
)

@
?
24

§
¦
¨
94

@
?
38

§
¦
¨

CR.

894

Y
"
)

PA
RK

@
?
CREEK

"
)
Y

"
)I

@
?
OK

119

ES
"
)

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Civil Divisions

UPPER KELLY
LAKE
LOWER KELLY
LAKE

@
?
24

³
0 2,600 5,200
Feet

Aerial Map
10,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October, 14, 2008

45
t
u

MN-1

§
¦
¨
43

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

MN-1

!

MN-3
41
t
u

MN-2

!!

MN-3

MN-10

MN-2

45
t
u

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 E
E
DA
ND
EN
A LL E

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
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
UK
KE
EE
WA
E
M II LL W
45
t
u

MN-13

MN-14
MN-13

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

!

43

!

§
¦
¨

!
!
MN-16 !
MN-17

MN-17
MN-14

94

§
¦
¨

MN-15
41
t
u

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

MN-18

94

A
A

18
t
u

! MN-18

§
¦
¨

18
t
u

894

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

41
t
u

MN-16

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
45
t
u

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

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨
894

§
¦
¨
43

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions

³
0 2,5005,000
Feet

MN Watershed
Model Reach Tributary Area
10,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

!

MN-17
!

!
!

³

LEGEND

!
"
"

#

Assessment Points

Water

CSO

Routing Reach Tributary Area

SSO

Watersheds

NCCW

Waterbodies
Civil Division

0

455 910
Feet

Assessment Point Map: MN-17
1,820

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

76th S
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
!

MN-17
!

!
!

.
d
R
d
n
u
o
m
e
u
Bl

Greenfield Av.
LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Routing Reach Tributary Area

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
445 890
Feet

Land Use Map: MN-17
1,780

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

Menomonee River - Variance Standards/Targets
Constituent

Measure

Standard/Target
1

Variance Standard - Geometric mean not to exceed
Fecal Coliform

1,000 counts/100 ml
1

Variance Standard - Less than 10% of all samples/month
1

2,000 counts/100 ml

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Variance Standard - Minimum Concentration

2 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

USGS Median TSS Reference Concentration (estimated
background concentration)

17.2 mg/l

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Flashiness
1

Planning Guideline
Richards Baker Flashiness Index (quantifies the frequency
and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow; the index
ranges from 0 - 2, with 0 being constant flow)

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

0.1 mg/l

indicator only

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan Fact Sheet
MN-17, Reach 908, RI-09, Menomonee River Downstream of Honey Creek (North 70th Street)
Data resulting from model runs:

Figure
Flashiness index

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
The Flashiness Index quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The index ranges from 0
Good

Dissolved oxygen
v. days per year
Fecal coliform v.
days per year

Good

Phosphorus v.
days per year
Suspended solids
v. days per year

Moderate to Poor

Monthly chloride
grab samples (CL
not from models)

Inconclusive (no
winter data)

Monthly
dissolved oxygen
Monthly fecal
coliform

Very Good to
Good
Moderate to Poor

Monthly
phosphorus

Moderate to Poor

Monthly
suspended solids

Good

Variable (some
good, some bad)

Good

to 2, with 0 being constant flow. The flashiness is reasonably good at this location.
Typically, aquatic communities need 5 mg/l or more of dissolved oxygen to survive. Concentrations at this site are
consistently above this level as well as the variance standard of 2 mg/l.
For recreational uses, lower fecal coliform counts (a measure of bacteria) are better (preferably under 400 counts / 100ml).
The counts on majority of the days are either ‘below 400’ or ‘above 5,000’. A potential goal in this case may be to
determine the conditions that create the ‘above 5,000’ days and discourage recreational use on days that meet these
conditions. As there is a variance that allows the fecal coliform to reach 2,000 counts, another goal could be to find ways
to decrease coliform loads in order to increase the number of days that have fewer than 2,000 counts.
Phosphorus is a nutrient that can lead to increased growth of algae. The concentrations are at or below the 0.1 mg/l
planning standard on most of the days, but the concentrations exceed 0.5mg/l on some of the days.
Suspended solids cause water to become cloudy, which is aesthetically unpleasant. They can also clog the gills of fish and
invertebrates, make feeding difficult, and lead to sediment deposition (poor habitat). The concentrations are less than 25
mg/l on most of the days.
These samples have chloride concentrations that are below levels that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a
common source of chloride is road salt and there is no winter data. 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.
Notice the decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations during the summer. This is normal due to the decreased solubility
of oxygen in warmer water.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, note that the median value declines during in the
summer swimming season. This may be related to the die-off of bacteria due to solar radiation. Also note that the
summer accounts for many of the ‘below 400’ days mentioned above while the winter has many of the ‘above 5,000’
days.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, note that the median value increases in March. This
may be related to snow melt. Also note that concentrations are lower in May (75th percentile below 0.1 mg/l); this could
be due to increased plant uptake.
Suspended solids are relatively low year-round and slightly lower during the winter months. This is probably linked to a
number of factors including frozen conditions, decreased construction activities, and low-impact storms (snow doesn’t
pound the soil like rain).

Figure
Chloride by flow
(Cl not from
models)
Dissolved oxygen
by flow
Fecal coliform by
flow

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Inconclusive (no
It is difficult to assess chloride 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
winter data)
Good
Moderate to Poor

Phosphorus by
flow

Moderate to Poor

Suspended solids
by flow

Good

noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow conditions, the concentration becomes diluted.
Note that the decline in dissolved oxygen occurs at low flows. This is likely due to a combination of decreased water
agitation and higher temperatures (low flow conditions are often associated with the warm summer months).
Generally, a pollutant that is present at high concentrations during high flows and low concentrations during low flows
(fecal coliform, in this case) is attributed primarily to non-point sources. The infrequent sewer overflows (once every 2-5
years) would only contribute during the high flows when substantial non-point loads are already present. Note that during
any period with the highest flows, fecal coliform counts exceed the variance standard. During moist conditions, the counts
exceed the variance standard over 50% of the time. During low flows, the variance standard is met all of the time. This
would be the safest time for any recreational uses (boating, swimming, wading, etc.).
Concentrations of phosphorus are greatest at high and low flows. This suggests a background source of phosphorus that is
particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps from non-contact cooling water) as well as non-point sources of phosphorus
at high flows.
The concentrations of suspended solids increase with increased flows, suggesting contributions from non-point sources.
The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from stream bank erosion, or re-suspended
stream sediments.

Flashiness Index

Reach

Description

Richards Baker Flashiness Index

RI-09

North 70th Street

0.49

Flashiness Index
North 70th Street (908)

AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (CFS)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Existing Water Quality Data

Assessment
Point
MN-17
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)

80

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

492

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

296

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,660

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

90

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

361

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

150

Mean (mg/l)

6.6

Median (mg/l)

6.3

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)1

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.052

Median (mg/l)

0.031
88

Mean (mg/l)

0.66

Median (mg/l)

0.67

Total Suspended Solids

Mean (mg/l)

8.5

Copper

Mean (mg/l)

0.0036

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

Median (mg/l)

1

5,659

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

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

Condition
Existing

5.0

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)

400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>10

9-10

8-9

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

0-1

Average DO (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

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)

Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>0.5

0.45-0.5

0.4-0.45

0.35-0.4

0.3-0.35

0.25-0.3

0.2-0.25

0.15-0.2

0.1-0.15

0.05-0.1

0-0.05

Average TP (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>200

175-200

150-175

125-150

100-125

75-100

50-75

25-50

0-25

Average TSS (mg/L)

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
Chloride
Flow Conditions

Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L)

Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

Concentration (mg/L)

1000

100

10

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Dry
Conditions

Low
Flows

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data

70

80

90

100

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
Dissolved Oxygen
Flow Conditions

Special Variance Regulatory Standard (2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

100

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions
1.E+05

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

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Box & Whiskers
Dry
Conditions

Low
Flows

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

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
Total Phosphorus
Flow Conditions

Planning Standard (0.1 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1.00

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

0.10

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

North 70th Street (RI-09) – Reach 908
Total Suspended Solids
Flow Conditions

Reference Concentration (17.2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1000

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Watershed Restoration Plan

Fact Sheet for Assessment Point MN-18

Assessment Point: MN-18
The following data are excerpts from multiple reports. While the same location in the
Menomonee River watershed is represented, the assessment point IDs differ. Throughout
the following data, Assessment Point MN-18 is also represented by:
o Reach 919
o RI-10
o Falk Dam
o Menomonee River Near Upstream Limit of Estuary

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
RG
UR
BU
RB
C
AR
DA
ED
CE

§
¦
¨
43

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
N
ON
UO
EQ
QU
ME

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

41
t
u
45
t
u

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

§
¦
¨
43

LIT TLE MENOMONEE RIVER

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

45
t
u
41
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
ND
EN
A LL E
G LL E
DA
E

LILLY CREEK

45
t
u

§
¦
¨
43

BUTLER DITCH

41
t
u
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
M
WA
AU
M II LL W
UK
KE
EE
E

45
t
u

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

§
¦
¨

LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER

43

UNDERWOOD CREEK

41
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DOUSMAN DITCH

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

o ff
S
SH
HA
A

94

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

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

41
t
u

HONEY CREEK

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N

§
¦
¨

45
t
u

94

§
¦
¨
894

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

§
¦
¨
43

³

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Combined Sewer Area
Civil Divisions

0

0.5

1
Miles

Watershed Map
2

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

"
)T

"
)T

45
t
u

M
"
)

G
"
)

Y
"
)
C
"
)

@
?
145

M
"
)

C
"
)

@
?
181

@
?
57

BR.

N.

M

PIG
EO
N

NO

Y
"
)

E

ME
NO
MO
.
NEE
BR

"
)
RIVER

41
t
u

NE

"
)F

RI
VE
R

MENOM
O

W.

45
t
u

@
?
167

@
?
167

Y
"
)

57

@
?
181

BAR

CREEK

K

175

@
?
145

NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL

WILLOW CREEK

LAC
du
COURS

ER

WIL LOW

FISH

RIV

Q
"
)

AY

"
)F

NOR-X
-W

@
?

ME

B
"
)

PP
"
)

PP
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff

G
"
)

G
DA
E
EN
A LL E
ND
G LL E

@
?
Y
"
)

V
"
)
VV
"
)

@
?

45
t
u
@
?

LILLY

74

S
"
)

S
"
)

57

100

SUS SEX

E
"
)

VV
"
)

§
¦
¨
43

"
)
YY

E
CR E

@
?
181

K
"
)

LINCOLN

BUTLER DITCH

"
)J
CREEK

Y
"
)

@
?
190

@
?

@
?

190

190

@
?

41
t
u

100

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
WA
UK
KE
EE
E
M II LL W

PE

45
t
u

UN

ER
RIV

M
"
)

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
O
A
W
A RIVER
SA
OS
A TTMENOMONEE
WLOWER
UW
WA
AU

OD
RW O

E

RIV
ER

DE

UKE
WA

M
"
)

§
¦
¨
94

18
t
u

DITCH

Y
"
)
JJ
"
)

J

ONE E
RIVER

K
EE
CR

DOUSMAN DITCH

"
)

43

MENO
M

TJ
"
)

§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
94

K

t
u
18

§
¦
¨

@
?
59

@
?

@
?
181

894

SOUTH BRANCH UNDERWOOD CREEK

AR
PL
PO

@
?
59

@
?

59

59

ER
RIV

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

@
?
100

O
"
)

D
"
)
Y
"
)

41
t
u

@ t
?
45
u
100

"
)
O

164

"
)I

"
)I

§
¦
¨
43

EK
CR E

W
IL

SO

N

U
"
)

Y
"
)
U
"
)

@
?

Y
NE

HONEY CREEK

EK

HO

ES
"
)

E
CR

"
)

NN

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
9

32

LYONS

"
)T

D
"
)

@
?

KINNICKINNIC

D
"
)

@
?

18
t
u

94

CRE
E

CREEK

A
A

41
t
u

18
t
u

DEER

FT
"
)

MILL

§
¦
¨

UNDERWOOD CREEK

FOX

DOUSMAN

57

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

@
?

@
?

@
?

@
?

190

164

K
EE
"
)

EE
"
)

K
"
)

JJ
"
)

F

CREEK

LILLY CREEK

"
)J

"
)J

W
"
)

145

74

E
WHIT

@
?

@
?

W
"
)

N
IA

ER
RIV

RI V ER

@
?
W
"
)

32

.
CR

E

ER

175

@
?

181

O NE

RIV

100

E

@
?

M

YY
"
)

@
?

WAUK
E
MIL

N

41
t
u

NEE
MO

Y
"
)

100

O

NO
ME

74

@
?

43

100

@
?

74

§
¦
¨

57

LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

CREEK

32

@
?

45
t
u

UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER

@
?

145

@
?

LITTLE

Q
"
)

V
"
)

VV
"
)

@
?
57

@
?

Q
"
)

@
?

LITTLE

LAKE

CH
AN
NE
L

BARK

W
"
)

IN
D

AMY
BELL
LAKE

32

LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK

WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

ME
NO
MO
NE
E

175

@
?

E

@
?

G

VE
R

145

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

K

@
?

43

RI

167

CREEK

EE

E
CRE

N
MO

@
?

§
¦
¨

PIT
LAKE

NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER

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

36

N
"
)

@
?
24

§
¦
¨
94

@
?
38

§
¦
¨

CR.

894

Y
"
)

PA
RK

@
?
CREEK

"
)
Y

"
)I

@
?
OK

119

ES
"
)

LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Civil Divisions

UPPER KELLY
LAKE
LOWER KELLY
LAKE

@
?
24

³
0 2,600 5,200
Feet

Aerial Map
10,400

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October, 14, 2008

45
t
u

MN-1

§
¦
¨
43

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
ME
EQ
QU
UO
ON
N

MN-1

!

MN-3
41
t
u

MN-2

!!

MN-3

MN-10

MN-2

45
t
u

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 E
E
DA
ND
EN
A LL E

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
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
AU
UK
KE
EE
WA
E
M II LL W
45
t
u

MN-13

MN-14
MN-13

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA

!

43

!

§
¦
¨

!
!
MN-16 !
MN-17

MN-17
MN-14

94

§
¦
¨

MN-15
41
t
u

18
t
u

18
t
u

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨

MN-18

94

A
A

18
t
u

! MN-18

§
¦
¨

18
t
u

894

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

41
t
u

MN-16

C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
NE
EW
W B
BE
ER
R LL II N
N
45
t
u

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

§
¦
¨
94

§
¦
¨
894

§
¦
¨
43

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions

³
0 2,5005,000
Feet

MN Watershed
Model Reach Tributary Area
10,000

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
November 10, 2008

76th S

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

nd
Fo

yy oo ff
AA TT O
O SS AA

!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

MN-18
!

Greenfield Av.

oo ff
A
A LL LL II S
S

³

LEGEND

!
"
"

#

Assessment Points

Watersheds

CSO

Assessment Point Basins

SSO

Water

NCCW

Waterbodies

0

Civil Division

550 1,100
Feet

Assessment Point
Map: MN-18
2,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

76th S

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

nd
Fo

yy oo ff
AA TT O
O SS AA

!
!
!

Bluemound Rd.

MN-18
!

Greenfield Av.

oo ff
A
A LL LL II S
S

³

LEGEND

!

Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins

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

550 1,100

Civil Division

Feet

Land Use
Map: MN-18
2,200

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
October 16, 2008

Menomonee River - Variance Standards/Targets
Constituent

Measure

Standard/Target
1

Variance Standard - Geometric mean not to exceed
Fecal Coliform

1,000 counts/100 ml
1

Variance Standard - Less than 10% of all samples/month
1

2,000 counts/100 ml

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Variance Standard - Minimum Concentration

2 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

USGS Median TSS Reference Concentration (estimated
background concentration)

17.2 mg/l

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Flashiness
1

Planning Guideline
Richards Baker Flashiness Index (quantifies the frequency
and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow; the index
ranges from 0 - 2, with 0 being constant flow)

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

0.1 mg/l

indicator only

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan Fact Sheet
MN-18, Reach 919, RI-10, Menomonee River Near the Upper Limit of the Estuary (Falk Dam)
Data resulting from model runs:

Figure
Flashiness index

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
The Flashiness Index quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The index ranges from 0
Good

Dissolved oxygen
v. days per year
Fecal coliform v.
days per year

Good

Phosphorus v.
days per year
Suspended solids
v. days per year

Moderate to Poor

Monthly
dissolved oxygen
Monthly fecal
coliform

Very Good to
Good
Moderate to Poor

Monthly
phosphorus
Monthly
suspended solids

Moderate to Poor

Variable (some
good, some bad)

Good

Good

to 2, with 0 being constant flow. The flashiness is reasonably good at this location.
Typically, aquatic communities need 5 mg/l or more of dissolved oxygen to survive. Concentrations at this site are nearly
always above this level and are consistently above the variance standard of 2 mg/l.
For recreational uses, lower fecal coliform counts (a measure of bacteria) are better (preferably under 400 counts / 100ml).
The counts on majority of the days are either ‘below 400’ or ‘above 5,000’. A potential goal in this case may be to
determine the conditions that create the ‘above 5,000’ days and discourage recreational use on days that meet these
conditions. As there is a variance that allows the fecal coliform to reach 2,000 counts, another goal could be to find ways
to decrease coliform loading in order to increase the number of days that have fewer than 2,000 counts.
Phosphorus is a nutrient that can lead to increased growth of algae. About half of the days had concentrations that
exceeded the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline.
Suspended solids cause water to become cloudy, which is aesthetically unpleasant. They can also clog the gills of fish and
invertebrates, make feeding difficult, and lead to sediment deposition (poor habitat). The concentrations are less than 25
mg/l on most of the days.
Note the decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations during the summer. This is normal due to the decreased solubility of
oxygen in warmer water. Concentrations are well above the special variance level.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, notice that the median values decline during the
summer swimming season. This may be related to the die-off of bacteria due to solar radiation. Also note that the
summer accounts for many of the ‘below 400’ days mentioned above while the winter has many of the ‘above 5,000’
days. Fecal coliform counts increase noticeably in March and are potentially related to snow melt.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, note that the median concentration increases slightly
in March. This could be explained by snow melt.
Suspended solids concentrations are relatively low year-round and slightly lower during the winter months. This is
probably linked to a number of factors including frozen conditions, decreased construction activities, and low-impact
storms (snow doesn’t pound the soil like rain).

Figure
Dissolved oxygen
by flow
Fecal coliform by
flow

Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Good
Note the decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations during low flows. This is likely due to a combination of decreased
Moderate to Poor

Phosphorus by
flow

Moderate to Poor

Suspended solids
by flow

Good

water agitation and higher temperatures (low flow conditions are often associated with warm summer months).
Generally, a pollutant that is present at high concentrations during high flows and low concentrations during low flows
(fecal coliform, in this case) is attributed primarily to non-point sources. The infrequent sewer overflows (once every 2-5
years) would only contribute during the high flows when substantial non-point loads are already present. Note that during
any period with the highest flows, fecal coliform counts exceed the regulatory variance standard. During moist conditions,
the counts are above the variance standard over 50% of the time. During low flows, the variance standard is met all of the
time. This would be the safest time for any recreational uses (boating, swimming, wading, etc.).
Concentrations of phosphorus are greatest at high and low flows, although concentrations are frequently greater than the
planning guideline under all flow conditions. The higher concentrations at flow extremes suggests a background source of
phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to inputs of non-contact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows.
The concentrations of suspended solids increase with increased flows, suggesting contributions from non-point sources.
The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from stream bank erosion, or re-suspended
stream sediments.

Flashiness Index

Reach

Description

Richards Baker Flashiness Index

RI-10

Falk Dam

0.49

Flashiness Index
Falk Dam (919)

AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (CFS)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Existing Water Quality Data

Assessment
Point
MN-18
Menomonee
River near
Upstream Limit
of Estuary

Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

Total Phosphorus

Statistic

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

80

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

492

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

296

Mean (cells per 100 ml)

2,660

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

90

Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)

361

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

150

Mean (mg/l)

6.6

Median (mg/l)

6.3

Percent compliance with dissolved
oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)1

100

Mean (mg/l)

0.052

Median (mg/l)

0.031
88

Mean (mg/l)

0.66

Median (mg/l)

0.67

Total Suspended Solids

Mean (mg/l)

8.5

Copper

Mean (mg/l)

0.0036

Median (mg/l)

0.0013

Median (mg/l)

1

5,659

Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)1

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

Condition
Existing

5.0

Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.

Menomonee River @ Falk Dam (RI 10)

400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>10

9-10

8-9

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

0-1

Average DO (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Falk Dam (RI 10)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

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)

280

240

200

160

120

Average Number of Days Per Year

Menomonee River @ Falk Dam (RI 10)
400

360

320

80

40

0

>0.5

0.45-0.5

0.4-0.45

0.35-0.4

0.3-0.35

0.25-0.3

0.2-0.25

0.15-0.2

0.1-0.15

0.05-0.1

0-0.05

AverageTP (mg/L)

Menomonee River @ Falk Dam (RI 10)
400

360

Average Number of Days Per Year

320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
>200

175-200

150-175

125-150

100-125

75-100

50-75

25-50

0-25

Average TSS (mg/L)

Falk Dam (RI-10) – Reach 919
Dissolved Oxygen
Flow Conditions

Special Variance Regulatory Standard (2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

100

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Falk Dam (RI-10) – Reach 919
Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions
1.E+05

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

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Box & Whiskers
Dry
Conditions

Low
Flows

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

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Falk Dam (RI-10) – Reach 919
Total Phosphorus
Flow Conditions

Planning Standard (0.1 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1.00

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

0.10

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

Falk Dam (RI-10) – Reach 919
Total Suspended Solids
Flow Conditions

Reference Concentration (17.2 mg/L)

Box & Whiskers

1000

Concentration (mg/L)

Mid-range
Flows

Moist
Conditions

High
Flows

Low
Flows

Dry
Conditions

100

10

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow Duration Interval (%)

Modeled Flow Data

70

80

90

100

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4D

Baseline Fecal Coliform - Total Nonpoint
Load
14.0
450
Assessment
Point Area

12.0

400
350

Total NP
Load per
acre

10.0

300

8.0

250

6.0

200
150

4.0

100
2.0

50
0

0.0

Baseline Annual Fecal Coliform Loads Ranked by
Total Nonpoint Load Per Acre
Assessment
Point
MN-18
MN-16
MN-17
MN-15
MN-14
MN-13
MN-12
MN-11
MN-6
MN-9
MN-10
MN-8
MN-7
MN-5
MN-3
MN-4
MN-2
MN-1

Total load
(counts)
1,910,966
2,342,744
421,757
1,735,461
2,353,537
1,102,226
159,102
2,203,091
411,666
775,299
150,343
224,212
200,552
243,600
77,793
94,701
80,777
17,124

Assessment
Total Nonpoint Load per
Point Area
acre (counts/acre/year)
(acres)
4,614.3
414
6,961.5
337
1,300.3
324
5,739.7
302
7,886.0
298
4,653.4
237
766.2
208
11,765.4
187
2,812.6
146
7,555.6
103
2,124.2
71
3,605.0
62
3,640.1
55
4,733.4
51
2,869.5
27
3,699.7
26
5,316.2
15
2,399.6
7

Total Nonpoint Load (billion counts/acre/year)

Assessment point area (thousand acres)

Menomonee River Watershed

14.0

Baseline Total Suspended Solids - Total
Nonpoint Load
0.25
Assessment
Point Area
Total NP Load
per acre

12.0

0.20

10.0
0.15

8.0
6.0

0.10

4.0
0.05
2.0
0.0

0.00

Baseline Annual Total Suspended Solids Loads Ranked
by Total Nonpoint Load Per Acre
Assessment
Point

Total load
(tons)

MN-12
MN-18
MN-6
MN-15
MN-14
MN-16
MN-17
MN-9
MN-11
MN-7
MN-13
MN-8
MN-5
MN-10
MN-3
MN-4
MN-1
MN-2

162
945
503
907
1081
939
153
794
1207
360
458
349
300
132
166
156
73
159

Assessment
Total Nonpoint Load per
Point Area
acre (tons/acre/year)
(acres)
766
0.212
4,614
0.205
2,813
0.179
5,740
0.158
7,886
0.137
6,962
0.135
1,300
0.118
7,556
0.105
11,765
0.103
3,640
0.099
4,653
0.098
3,605
0.097
4,733
0.063
2,124
0.062
2,870
0.058
3,700
0.042
2,400
0.030
5,316
0.030

Total Nonpoint Load (tons/acre/year)

Assessment point area (thousand acres)

Menomonee River Watershed

14.0

Baseline Total Phosphorus - Total
Nonpoint Load

12.0
10.0

Assessment
Point Area
Total NP Load
per acre

8.0

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40

6.0

0.30

4.0

0.20

2.0

0.10

0.0

0.00

Baseline Annual Total Phosphorus Loads Ranked by
Total Nonpoint Load Per Acre
Assessment
Point
MN-18
MN-15
MN-16
MN-12
MN-14
MN-17
MN-13
MN-6
MN-8
MN-7
MN-11
MN-9
MN-5
MN-3
MN-10
MN-4
MN-2
MN-1

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

Assessment
Total Nonpoint Load per
Point Area
acre (pounds/acre/year)
(acres)
4,614
0.714
5,740
0.573
6,962
0.563
766
0.555
7,886
0.553
1,300
0.514
4,653
0.485
2,813
0.436
3,605
0.429
3,640
0.356
11,765
0.351
7,556
0.351
4,733
0.285
2,870
0.209
2,124
0.202
3,700
0.184
5,316
0.136
2,400
0.112

Nonpoint load per acre (pounds/acre/year)

Assessment point area (thousand acres)

Menomonee River Watershed

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 5: Identify Solutions and Develop Management Strategies to Achieve
Goals
5.1

Goals Identified in the Watershed Planning Effort

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Executive Steering Committee of the Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) determined that the water quality goals from the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission’s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update (RWQMPU) should be used for the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). Through
discussions at Watershed Action Team (WAT) and Science Committee meetings, focus areas
were developed that reflect the linkage between water quality parameters and water usage.
Consistent with the focus areas for the WRP as identified in Chapter 3, the management
strategies need to address the following critical areas:
1) Bacteria/Public Health
Fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator of pathogens, or microscopic organisms that can
make people sick. The committees agreed that public health should be a top priority of
the WRP. High levels of fecal coliforms 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 or unidentified
sources of fecal coliform. A discussion of why fecal coliform was used in the analysis
for the WRP, and the caveats that go with it, is provided in Section 7.2.1 of the WRP.
2) Habitat/Aesthetics
The committees stressed that habitat issues include not only physical features, but water
quality components as well. As discussed in Chapter 3, this WRP acknowledges that
aesthetic improvement does not always relate directly to water quality or habitat
improvement, but in many cases they are linked. In addition, aesthetic improvement is
strongly related to quality of life issues and environmental justice issues. See Chapter 3,
Section 3.3 for additional discussion regarding these linkages.
The Science Committee identified physical features, such as concrete-lined channels and
increased buffer widths as important considerations for habitat/aesthetics, but the
consensus was that the WRP should also consider the following parameters:
Chloride
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Sediment
Dissolved oxygen (DO) /biochemical oxygen demand (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

5-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

3) Nutrients/Phosphorus
In-stream phosphorus concentrations tend to be variable 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.
The management strategies also consider nitrogen, copper, legacy pollutants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and emerging contaminants such as pharmaceutical and
personal care products (PPCPs). However, these pollutants are not a primary focus of 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

With regard to aesthetic and habitat improvements, the Menomonee River Watershed Action
Team (WAT) identified the issues and desired improvements summarized below, which are also
listed in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.
1) Manmade channels/concrete channels
The WAT committee suggested that concrete linings be removed and stream channels be
naturalized. The following reaches were noted as candidates for concrete removal/stream
naturalization: Underwood Creek, Honey Creek (downstream of 84th Street and upstream
of McCarty Park) and the Menomonee River. See the Underwood Creek Baseline Water
Quality Report (2003-2005) for locations of drop structures and concrete-lined channels.1
The removal of concrete and stream naturalization would also serve to remove barriers to
fish passage. The concrete lining along the Menomonee River channel in the vicinity of
Miller Park is a good example of an impediment to fish passage. Other considerations
included removing streams from enclosed conduit (stream daylighting) and reintroduction of stream meanders. Daylighting streams and reintroducing meanders would
immediately improve habitat and aesthetics (vistas) and have the effect of drawing people
to the river, but potential impacts to public safety and flooding also need to be
considered.
2) In-stream conditions
The WAT committee made a number of suggestions regarding improvements to instream conditions. In general, these suggestions addressed habitat, water quality, and instream physical conditions. These suggestions included the following:

1

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

5-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Increase pools and riffles
Decrease flashiness and thermal discharges
No fish advisories
Reduce unnatural solids in streambed
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
Remove invasive species
Clean up Superfund sites such as Little Menomonee River
Other suggestions, such as reducing nutrient and chloride loads, eliminating fecal
coliforms, and increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations address water quality within
the Menomonee River. Suggestions to address physical characteristics of the river
include litter reduction programs and a focus on improved water clarity and color.
3) Riparian areas
Riparian areas are the lands that are adjacent to the Menomonee River streambanks.
Riparian areas protect and buffer the stream from pollutant loadings. To maximize their
protective benefits, the WAT committee suggested that riparian areas be kept vegetated
with natural plantings. The vegetation should be maintained and managed to enhance
native biological diversity and be balanced with recreational needs. The WAT committee
also suggested riparian areas should be expanded to a minimum of 75 feet. Structures
should also be removed from riparian areas that are also located within the floodplain.
Other WAT committee suggestions involving riparian areas along the Menomonee River
included the following:
Construct and restore wetlands
Reduce or eliminate nutrient inputs from manure spreading in rural areas
Improve public access to river (indirect improvement through increased
recreational use and awareness of the river)
Improve diversity of aquatic life
4) In-stream and riparian areas
The WAT committee suggested that projects be initiated at the headwaters and work
progressively downstream. The committee also suggested that the river would benefit
from greater diversity of aquatic life, plants and animals that would use the river.

5-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

5) Desired uses
The WAT committee identified several desired uses for the Menomonee River, including
swimming and riverwalks with public access at 25th Street and points downstream along
the Menomonee River. Fishing at Petit Point, located at 12th Street and Bruce Street, was
also identified as a desired use. Another use was kayaking and canoeing along the river,
but woody debris within the streams would need to be evaluated.
6) Overarching and vision
Communities and resource managers need to frame the river as a community asset.
Communities need to create an identity for the river and identify and associate positively
with the river. In terms of vision, communities should consider cost-benefits and focus
on green infrastructure, sustainable solutions and provide education and opportunities for
their citizens to live sustainably. For example, the WAT committee indicated that an
educational program that addresses low-impact lawn care practices that result in fewer
impacts to the river would be beneficial.
These focus areas and goals were considered as the management strategies were developed for
the Menomonee River WRP. The framework to be used for these management strategies will be
based upon the same theme as the RWQMPU. Both the WRP and the RWQMPU used
categories of facilities, policies, operational improvements and programs. These strategies can
interact with one another. For example, consider the construction of a new system or facility. A
new system will require new operational procedures. These new operational procedures will be
based upon policies and involve new programs. The categories are simply a way to characterize
the management strategies as they are developed.
5.2

Management Strategies to Achieve Goals

The management strategies (FPOPs) must be identified and developed to reduce the loads in a
cost effective manner to achieve the goals identified in Chapter 3. The approach to reduce
pollutant loads in the Menomonee River watershed is predicated on the assumption that the
existing regulations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be implemented. In other
words, the analysis assumes that the recommended management strategies used to meet these
regulations, identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP) and SEWRPC’s RWQMPU, are in
place. These management strategies would then be the foundation on which new management
strategies are added to achieve the desired goals.
These management strategies (FPOPs) are grouped in the following three categories and
discussed in subsequent sections in this chapter:
1) Existing regulatory management strategies (Table 5-1)
2) Other management strategies in various stages of implementation (Table 5-2)
3) Management strategies recommended for implementation by the RWQMPU, but not yet
implemented (Table 5-3)
These tables summarize the strategies identified in the RWQMPU that could be used to achieve
the goals identified for the Menomonee River watershed. Each table corresponds to one of the
three categories of management strategies identified above. The tables indicate which area (or
areas) of focus each FPOP primarily addresses. The table also presents selected responsible

5-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

parties and participants. For addition detail, see SWWT membership list and governmental
management agency designations and selected responsibilities (Planning Report No.50 Tables
93-99) located in Appendices 5B and 5C.
5.3

Existing Regulatory Management Strategies to Achieve Goals

Pollutant loading in the Menomonee River is a function of point sources and nonpoint sources.
The management strategies (FPOPs) discussed in this chapter address pollutant loading from
both types of sources. Table 5-1 summarizes the existing regulatory management strategies
(FPOPs) to achieve goals. The table includes: the focus pollutant that the strategy addresses, the
agencies responsible for implementation and compliance, and the status of the regulatory
strategy as of October 2009.

5-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (FPOPS) TO ACHIEVE GOALS
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Point source control

X

X

X

WDNR, MMSD,
and
municipalities

Regulatory program
underway

CSO/SSO reduction program

X

X

X

WDNR, MMSD,
and
municipalities

Regulatory program
underway

WPDES stormwater permits
(MS4)

X

X

X

WDNR and
municipalities

Regulatory program
underway

X

X

WDNR and
municipalities

Regulatory program
underway

X

WDNR

Regulatory program
underway

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

NR 151
Vacuum street sweeping
Conservation tillage
Infiltration systems
Parking lot
implementation of MCTTs
Vacuum sweeping
parking lots
Wet detention basins
Phosphorus fertilizer ban

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

MMSD Chapter 13 revisions

X

MMSD and
municipalities

Regulatory program
underway with
revision in progress

Transportation controls
TRANS 401
NR 151

X

WDNR,
WisDOT, and WI
Department of
Commerce

Regulatory program
underway

5-6

Continued...

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (FPOPS) TO ACHIEVE GOALS
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Programs to detect and
eliminate illicit discharges and
control pathogens that are
harmful to public health

X

TMDL, EAP, watershed
permitting and/or watershed
trading

X

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

X

Phosphorus water quality
standard
Notes:
Additional detail on all strategies can be found in the RWQMPU Planning Report No.
50, Chapters X and XI
Cl- = Chlorides
CSO = Combined Sewer Overflow
EAP = Environmental Accountability Project
FC = Fecal coliform
FPOP = Facilities, Policies, Operational Improvements, Programs
GLWI = Great Lakes WATER Institute
MCTT = Multi-chambered treatment train
MS4 = Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NGO = Non-governmental organization

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

X

Municipalities
and NGOs with
assistance from
UWM GLWI and
MMSD

Program underway in
Wauwatosa

X

WDNR and
USEPA

Could evolve from the
WRP

X

WDNR

Regulation being
drafted by WDNR

NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management
SSO = Sanitary Sewer Overflow
TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
TRANS 401 = WisDOT CHAPTER TRANS 401: Construction Site Erosion Control
and Stormwater Management Procedures for Department Actions
TSS = Total suspended solids
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UWM = University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WPDES = Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
WRP = Watershed Restoration Plan

5-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

5.3.1 Details on the Existing Regulatory Management Strategies to Achieve Goals
The following sections summarize the various regulatory strategies listed in Table 5-1.
Additional detail on regulatory strategies can be found in Chapter VI of SEWRPC’s Planning
Report No. 50.
Existing Point Source Control Regulations
Combined Sewer Overflow and Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Point source impacts on the Menomonee River watershed have been studied and evaluated for
many decades. The MMSD 2020 FP and the RWQMPU reviewed the status of point source
controls and found that they had progressed to the point that additional improvement in water
quality needed to focus on nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff. Still, the point source
control plans are vitally important to watershed restoration.
The 2020 FP developed an approved plan to meet the regulatory requirements regarding
MMSD’s point sources (e.g., SSOs, CSOs, and water reclamation facility [WRF] effluent). The
2020 FP concluded that, as a result of the substantial investment that has already been made to
effectively reduce both SSOs and CSOs, the MMSD has reached a point of diminishing returns
in terms of the additional water quality benefits that would result from further significant capital
investment to further reduce sewer overflows. The MMSD, however, was required by the 2002
WDNR Stipulation to submit a Wet Weather Control Plan that meets its permit requirements and
other requirements (discussed in Section 9.6.4 of Chapter 9 in the 2020 Facilities Plan Report).
The 2020 planning process concluded that a 5-year level of protection (LOP) for SSO control
under future 2020 population and land use conditions is consistent with state and federal
requirements. It is important to note that the MMSD facilities are currently in compliance with
point source pollution abatement measures required under state and federal laws. The new
facilities recommended in the 2020 FP are to continue to achieve a 5-year LOP assuming the
anticipated growth in population and land use.
The recommended facilities from the 2020 FP that directly address SSO and CSO control and
are assumed to be implemented include the following:
Implementation of a Wet Weather Peak Flow Management Program (WWPFMP)
Pumping capacity from the Inline Storage System (ISS) to the Jones Island Water
Reclamation Facility (JIWRF) of 180 million gallons per day
Additional treatment capacity at the South Shore Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF)
of 150 MGD
The 2020 FP also assumed that SSOs from the municipalities would also achieve a 5-year LOP.
This overall plan for CSO and SSO control was approved by the WDNR and is the
recommendation of the RWQMPU.

5-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Existing Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitted Industrial Discharges
There are 54 noncontact cooling water discharges in the Menomonee River watershed. All of
this noncontact cooling water is treated drinking water from municipal water supplies that is used
for cooling at industrial facilities and does not come into direct contact with any raw material,
product, byproduct, or waste. The water does contain phosphorus, in the form of phosphate,
which is added in the water treatment process as a safety measure to prevent metal pipes from
corroding and leaching metals such as lead into the drinking water. There are currently no other
cost effective substitutes for phosphate. Therefore, the phosphorus load to the Menomonee
River from noncontact cooling water discharges is assumed to be a constant for planning
purposes.
Also, other pollutant loads from industrial point sources represented in the water quality model
are based on permitted discharge limits. No changes to these permitted limits were assumed to
occur between the existing and the future water quality models. All discharge data have been
updated based upon data available through 2008.
5.3.2 Existing Nonpoint Source Regulatory Programs
Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources 216 Stormwater Discharge Permits
The administrative rules for the state stormwater discharge permit program are set forth in Wis.
Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 216 Stormwater Discharge Permits, which took effect on
November 1, 1994. These rules were most recently repealed and replaced effective August 1,
2004. In general, the following entities are required to obtain discharge permits under NR 216:
1) An owner or operator of an MS4 serving an incorporated area with a population of
100,000 or more
2) An owner or operator of an MS4 notified by WDNR prior to August 1, 2004 that they
must obtain a permit
3) An owner or operator of an MS4 located within an urbanized area as defined by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census
4) An owner or operator of an MS4 serving a population of 10,000 or more in a
municipality with a population density of 1,000 persons or more per square mile as
determined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
5) Industries identified in Section NR 216.21.18
6) Construction sites, except those associated with agricultural land uses, for those
commercial buildings regulated by Wis. Admin. Code Commerce (Comm) 50 through 64
and WisDOT projects that are subject to the liaison cooperative agreement between the
WDNR and WisDOT
Municipal Permits
On January 19, 2006, the WDNR issued a general stormwater discharge permit applicable to
MS4s for areas that do not have individual permits and that are one of the following:
1) An urbanized area with a minimum population of 50,000 people as determined by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census, or

5-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2) A municipality with a population of 10,000 or more and a population density of 1,000
persons or more per square mile, or
3) An area that drains to an MS4 that is designated for permit coverage.
The general permit “specifies conditions under which stormwater may be discharged to waters of
the state for the purpose of achieving water quality standards.” It establishes conditions for
discharges to state-designated outstanding or exceptional resource waters. When an MS4
discharges to an impaired waterbody listed in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
following conditions must be met:
1) The permittee’s written stormwater management program must specifically identify
control measures and practices that are to be applied in an attempt to reduce, with the
goal of eliminating, the discharge of pollutants of concern that contribute to the
impairment of the receiving water
2) The permittee may not initiate a new discharge of a pollutant of concern to an impaired
waterbody or increase the discharge of such a pollutant to an impaired waterbody unless
receiving water quality standards will be met or WDNR has approved a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) for the impaired waterbody
3) For discharges to a waterbody for which a TMDL has been established, the permittee
must determine if additional stormwater runoff controls are required to meet the TMDL
wasteload allocation
The general stormwater discharge permit establishes requirements for the following:
1) Public education and outreach
2) Public involvement and participation
3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4) Construction site pollutant control
5) Post-construction stormwater management and a pollution prevention program
The construction site pollutant control requirements and the post-construction control
requirements are based on the standards for new development, redevelopment, and transportation
facilities as set forth in NR 151 and NR 216.
The following NR 216 municipalities are in the Menomonee River watershed:
1) Town of Germantown
2) Village of Germantown
3) City of Mequon
4) Village of Menomonee Falls
5) Town of Richfield
6) Town of Lisbon
7) City of Brookfield
8) Village of Butler

5-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

9) City of Milwaukee
10) City of Wauwatosa
11) Town of Brookfield
12) Village of Elm Grove
13) City of New Berlin
14) City of West Allis
15) City of Greenfield
16) Village of Greendale
Industrial Stormwater
Industrial stormwater discharges are permitted unless the industry certifies to WDNR that their
facilities have no exposure of stormwater to industrial materials or activities that could
contaminate it. By state code, this certification occurs every five years. An exclusion under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that postponed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application deadlines for most stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity at facilities that are owned or operated by small
municipalities, including construction activity over five acres, was removed from the NR 216
regulation. All listed industrial facilities, whether municipally or privately-owned, will require
permit coverage as per federal regulations.
There are 175 industrial facilities that have stormwater discharge permits in the Menomonee
River watershed.
Construction Site Stormwater Discharges
This provision was revised to lower the threshold for permit coverage from five acres to one acre
of land disturbance. Areas less than one acre in size are also subject to regulation on a case-bycase basis if they are deemed to be a significant source of pollution to waters of the state.
Municipalities may request and become authorized to provide state construction site permit
coverage on behalf of WDNR.
Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources 151 Runoff Management
Through 1997 Wisconsin Act 27, the State Legislature required the WDNR and the Department
of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to develop performance standards for
controlling nonpoint source pollution from agricultural and nonagricultural land and from
transportation facilities. The performance standards are set forth in NR 151, which became
effective on October 1, 2002, and was revised in July 2004. This regulation includes the
following provisions:
Agricultural Performance Standards
Agricultural performance standards cover the following areas:
o

Cropland sheet, rill, and wind erosion control

o

Manure storage

5-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

o

Stormwater runoff

o

Nutrient management

Menomonee River

The following manure management prohibitions are set forth in Section NR 151.08:All
livestock producers shall comply with the following:
Shall have no overflow of manure storage facilities
Shall have no unconfined manure pile in a water quality management area
Shall have no direct runoff from a feedlot or stored manure into the waters of the state
May not allow unlimited access by livestock to waters of the state in a location where
high concentrations of animals prevent the maintenance of adequate sod or selfsustaining vegetative cover
For existing land that does not meet the NR 151 standards and was cropped or enrolled in
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve or Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs as of October 1, 2002, agricultural performance standards are only
required to be met if cost-sharing funds are available or if the best management practices
and other corrective measures needed to meet the performance standards do not involve
eligible costs. Existing cropland that met the standards as of October 1, 2002 must continue
to meet the standards. New cropland must meet the standards, regardless of whether costshare funds are available.
For existing livestock facilities that do not meet the NR 151 standards or prohibitions, the
performance standards or prohibitions are only required to be met if cost-sharing funds are
available or if the best management practices and other corrective measures needed to meet
the performance standards or prohibitions do not involve eligible costs. Existing livestock
facilities that met the standards as of October 1, 2002 must continue to meet the standards.
New livestock facilities must meet the standards, regardless of whether cost-share funds are
available.
Nonagricultural (urban) Performance Standards
The nonagricultural performance standards set forth in NR 151 encompass two major
types of land management. The first includes standards for areas of new development
and redevelopment and the second includes standards for developed urban areas. The
performance standards address the following areas:
o

Construction sites for new development and redevelopment

o

Post construction phase for new development and redevelopment

o

Developed urban areas

o

Non-municipal property fertilizing

Chapter NR 151 standards require that municipalities with WPDES stormwater discharge
permits reduce the amount of total suspended solids in stormwater runoff from areas of existing
development that is in place as of October 2004 to the maximum extent practicable, according to
the following standards:
By March 10, 2008, the NR 151 standards called for a 20% reduction

5-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

By October 1, 2013, the standards call for a 40% reduction
Also, permitted municipalities must implement 1) public information and education programs
relative to specific aspects of nonpoint source pollution control; 2) municipal programs for
collection and management of leaf and grass clippings; and 3) site-specific programs for
application of lawn and garden fertilizers on municipally controlled properties with over five
acres of pervious surface. Under the requirements of NR 151, by March 10, 2008, incorporated
municipalities with average population densities of 1,000 people or more per square mile that
were not required to obtain municipal stormwater discharge permits must now implement those
same three programs.
In addition, regardless of whether a municipality is required to have a stormwater discharge
permit under NR 216, NR 151 requires that all construction sites that have one acre or more of
land disturbance must achieve an 80% reduction in the sediment load generated by the site. With
certain limited exceptions, those sites required to have construction erosion control permits must
also have post-development stormwater management practices to reduce the total suspended
solids load from the site by 80% for new development, 40% for redevelopment, and 40% for
infill development occurring prior to October 1, 2012. After October 1, 2012, infill development
will be required to achieve an 80% reduction. If it can be demonstrated that the solids reduction
standard cannot be met for a specific site, total suspended solids must be controlled to the
maximum extent practicable. Note that during the development of this WRP, participants’
observations indicated that methods and installation are key factors that determine the
effectiveness of erosion control measures at construction sites.
Section NR 151.12 requires infiltration of post-development runoff from areas developed on or
after October 1, 2004, subject to specific exclusions and exemptions as set forth in Sections
151.12(5)(c)5 and 151.12(5)(c)6, respectively. In residential areas, either 90% of the annual
predevelopment infiltration volume or 25% of the post-development runoff volume from a twoyear recurrence interval 24-hour storm is required to be infiltrated. However, no more than 1%
of the area of the project site is required to be used as effective infiltration area. In commercial,
industrial and institutional areas, 60% of the annual predevelopment infiltration volume or 10%
of the post-development runoff volume from a two-year recurrence interval 24-hour storm is
required to be infiltrated. In this case, no more than 2% of the rooftop and parking lot areas are
required to be used as effective infiltration area.
Section NR 151.12 also generally requires impervious area setbacks of 50 feet from streams,
lakes, and wetlands. This setback distance is increased to 75 feet around NR 102-designated
outstanding or exceptional resource waters or NR 103-designated wetlands of special natural
resource interest. Reduced setbacks from less susceptible wetlands and drainage channels of not
less than 10 feet may be allowed.
Transportation Facility Performance Standards
Transportation facility performance standards that are set forth in NR 151 and in Wis. Admin.
Code Transportation (TRANS) 401 Construction Site Erosion Control and Storm Water
Management Procedures for Department Actions cover the following areas:
Construction sites
Post-construction phase

5-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Developed urban areas
The standards of TRANS 401 are applicable to WisDOT projects.
All of the municipalities in the watershed are, or will be, required to meet NR 151 standards to
the maximum extent practicable under the conditions of their WPDES municipal stormwater
discharge permits issued pursuant to NR 216. By implementing controls to meet the standards of
NR 151, municipalities will address the following:
1) Control of construction site erosion
2) Control of stormwater pollution from areas of existing and planned urban development,
redevelopment, and infill
3) Infiltration of stormwater runoff from areas of new development
Urban best management practices that would be installed under this recommendation to control
nonpoint source pollution from existing or new development could include the following:
1) Runoff infiltration/evapotranspiration and/or pollutant filtration devices such as grassed
swales, infiltration basins, bioretention facilities, rain gardens, green roofs, and porous
pavement
2) Stormwater treatment facilities such as wet detention basins, constructed wetlands, and
sedimentation/flotation devices
3) Maintenance practices such as vacuum sweeping of roads and parking lots
The benefits of full implementation of the urban standards set forth under NR 151 in reducing
fecal coliform bacteria, total suspended solids, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and heavy metals
loads delivered to the streams of the study area and in reducing runoff volumes through
infiltration practices were explicitly represented in the water quality modeling analyses
conducted as part of the RWQMPU and refined under the development of this WRP. They are
reflected in the future condition water quality results presented in Chapter 4.
The projected future analysis includes load reductions from existing sources and from new
sources. Chapter NR 151 “holds the line” with assumed growth in that the loads without NR 151
would grow. As directed by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board resolution of May 22,
2002, in 2007, WDNR began amending NR 151 and related administrative rules to clarify
language, modify grant criteria to reflect program priorities, and update certain provisions based
on improved data. More information about NR 151 regulation revisions is available from the
WDNR scope statement, which can be accessed at the following website:
http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/pdf/rules/nr151/ScopeStatement.pdf. As of October 2009, the rule
revision timeline had not been established.2
Phosphorus Fertilizer Ban
The state of Wisconsin enacted a ban on the sale of phosphorus-containing fertilizers that will
take effect on April 1, 2010. It is expected that this ban will have a reduction on phosphorus
loads to the Menomonee River watershed due to the reduced application of fertilizers that
contain phosphorus.
2

WDNR, NR 151 Rule Revision, http://www.dnr.wi.gov/runoff/rules/ , revised January 27, 2010.

5-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Total Maximum Daily Load or Environmental Accountability Project
The recommendations of this WRP may include the following regulatory actions as a next step in
the process of improving water quality in the Menomonee River watershed:
TMDL: This is an analysis that determines what levels of a given pollutant a waterbody
can receive without the uses of that waterbody being impaired. The federal CWA
requires that a TMDL be developed for each waterbody listed on the CWA Section
303(d) impaired waters list.3 As of the date of this WRP, the only stream reaches in the
Menomonee River watershed that are on that list are located along the Little Menomonee
River and in the estuary portion of the main stem of the river. As a result, a TMDL may
not be the best approach to watershed restoration.
The Little Menomonee River is listed due to creosote contamination in the sediment. The
pollutants in the estuary portion include E. coli, polychlorinated biphenyls, phosphorus,
and unspecified metals. The estuary portion is located downstream from the study area
for this WRP. The Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.'s Policy Committee is
considering issues related to the possible addition of other Menomonee River watershed
stream reaches to the impaired waters list. If any reaches were to be identified through
that process, the WDNR would make the decision as to whether they should be added to
the impaired waters list. Designation of additional reaches as impaired could facilitate
future development of a TMDL. This WRP sets forth an integrated plan for improvement
of water quality that can be pursued with or without establishment of TMDLs.
Phosphorus Water Quality Standard
The WDNR is in the process of adopting phosphorus water quality standards. When adopted,
this new standard will require an examination of all sources of phosphorus in the Menomonee
River watershed to assess actions needed to meet the new water quality standard.
5.4

Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation

Table 5-2 summarizes all of the existing management strategies that are being implemented to
some degree in the Menomonee River watershed. The table identifies the focus area the strategy
addresses, the agencies that are responsible for implementing the management strategy, and a
comment on the status of the management strategy as of October 2009.

3

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

5-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Develop according to
approved land use plans

Bacteria ID program

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
X

X

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

Counties,
SEWRPC, and
municipalities

In general,
municipalities and
counties are following
SEWRPC land use
plans.

MMSD, Great
Lakes Water
Institute, NGOs,
and municipalities

Program currently
underway in the
Menomonee River
watershed to identify
human sources from
storm sewer discharge.

Disconnect residential roof
drains from sanitary and
combined sewers and infiltrate
roof runoff, including:
Rain barrels
Rain gardens

X

Milwaukee County,
MMSD, and
municipalities

Program currently
underway in
Menomonee River
watershed.

Road salt reduction

X

WisDOT and
Municipalities

Implementation of
innovative anti-icing
and deicing programs
to reduce the use of
road salt as used by
some Milwaukee area
municipalities. (See
Road Salt Article in
Appendix 5A)
Continued...

5-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Maintain and preserve
environmentally significant
lands
Ongoing programs
Greenseams
Ongoing planning
efforts

Preserve highly productive
agricultural land

X

Reduce soil erosion from
cropland

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

X

X

MMSD, SEWRPC,
WDNR, and others
such as land trusts

The primary
environmental corridor
of the Menomonee
River watershed is
preserved by sewer
extension process.
The MMSD
Greenseams Program
will continue to look for
opportunities in the
Menomonee River
watershed.

X

X

Ozaukee County
Land Conservation

Program underway in
Ozaukee County.

X

X

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR and NRCS

Program underway.

Comment

Provide six months of manure
storage for livestock
operations

X

X

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR, and USDA

Expand number of
operations with six
month storage
capacity.

Prepare and/or implement
nutrient management plans

X

X

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR, and USDA

Program underway;
need to increase focus
on implementation.

Control barnyard runoff

X

X

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR, and USDA

Program underway;
need to expand
implementation.
Continued...

X

5-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Expand riparian buffers

X

X

X

Counties, DATCP,
Farm Services
Agency, WDNR,
Land Trusts and
NGOs

Milwaukee County is
considering expanding
parkland/buffers.
The River
Revitalization
Foundation has
initiated or identified
numerous projects in
the Menomonee River
watershed.

Convert marginal cropland and
pasture to wetlands and
prairies

X

X

X

Counties, WDNR,
USDA, and land
trusts

Program underway;
need to expand
implementation.

Restrict livestock access to
streams

X

X

X

Counties, DATCP
and WDNR

Program underway;
need to expand
implementation.

Manage milking center
wastewater

X

X

Counties and
WDNR

Program underway;
need to expand
implementation.

Expand oversight and
maintenance of private onsite
wastewater treatment systems
(e.g., septic systems)

X

X

Counties,
Municipalities and
Department of
Commerce

Program underway;
need to expand
implementation.

Manage pet litter

X

X

Counties and
municipalities

Program support
through municipal
ordinances.
Continued...

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

5-18

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Riparian litter and debris
control

X

X

Research and implementation
projects on nonpoint pollution
controls

X

X

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Concrete channel renovation
and rehabilitation (includes
drop structures)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

X

X

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

Counties, NGOs,
and municipalities

Program support
through municipal
ordinances and citizen
cleanup efforts.

MMSD, NGOs, and
municipalities

The MMSD is
continuing its
stormwater
demonstration grants.

MMSD and
municipalities

The MMSD is
rehabilitating
Underwood Creek and
is working to obtain
funding to rehabilitate
the Menomonee River
mainstem in Valley
Park.
The MMSD will
consider these aspects
in future watershed
channel rehabilitation
projects.
Continued...

5-19

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

Limit number of culverts,
bridges, drop structures, and
channelized stream segments
and incorporate design
measures to allow for passage
of aquatic life

X

WisDOT,
Counties,
Municipalities and
MMSD

The MMSD is
rehabilitating
Underwood Creek and
is working to obtain
funding to rehabilitate
the Menomonee River
mainstem in Valley
Park.
The MMSD will
consider these aspects
in future watershed
channel rehabilitation
projects.

Dam abandonment and
restoration plans

X

Waukesha County,
Menomonee Falls
and MMSD

Menomonee Falls
dam.

Remove abandoned bridges
and culverts or reduce culvert
length

X

Municipalities and
MMSD

The MMSD and
municipalities working
with WDNR and
private owners to
consider this type of
action as development
occurs.

Manage contaminated
sediment sites

X

WDNR

Superfund site clean
up on Little
Menomonee River.
Continued...

5-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

To the extent practicable,
protect remaining natural
stream channels including
small tributaries and shoreland
wetlands

X

Counties,
Municipalities and
MMSD

Counties,
municipalities, and the
MMSD are addressing
this issue. See notes
section at the end of
this table for a
reference to a recentlycompleted stream
assessment report that
addresses this
strategy.

Restore wetlands, woodlands,
and grasslands adjacent to the
stream channels and establish
riparian buffers

X

Counties, MMSD,
NGOs, land trusts,
and municipalities

The River
Revitalization
Foundation has
initiated or identified
numerous projects in
the Menomonee River
watershed.

Restore, enhance, and
rehabilitate stream channels to
provide increased water
quality and quantity of
available fisheries habitat

X

WisDOT,
Counties, MMSD,
and municipalities

Projects have been
completed or initiated
on Underwood Creek
in Elm Grove and
Wauwatosa and on the
Menomonee River
mainstem along Valley
Park.
Continued...

5-21

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Monitor fish and
macroinvertebrate populations

Implement programs to
discourage unacceptably high
numbers of waterfowl from
congregating near water
features
Continue and support of
programs to reduce the spread
of exotic invasive species,
including public education
programs

X

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

X

USGS, WDNR, and
NGOs

X

Counties and
municipalities

X

WDNR

Comment
Active programs
supported by the
MMSD. Potential for
NGO effort with
foundation and SWWT
support.
Vegetated buffers
discourage waterfowl
congregation. Some
actions already
implemented.
Various efforts
underway.
Continued...

5-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Continue and possibly expand
current MMSD, WDNR, and
USGS water quality monitoring
programs, including Phases II
and III of the MMSD corridor
study

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

X

X

X

Continue and possibly expand
USGS stream gauging
program
Continue citizen-based water
quality monitoring efforts

Monitor exotic and invasive
species

X

X

X

X

X

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

MMSD, WDNR,
USGS, NGOs

The MMSD conducts
water quality
monitoring and
supports the Corridor
Study. These are the
key foundations of the
watershed water
quality monitoring
effort. The NGOs with
foundation support are
another important
element, concentrating
on the detection of
unknown fecal coliform
sources.

USGS

The MMSD and
municipalities are
supporting this effort.

NGOs

The NGOs are leading
effort in cooperation
with the SWWT with
foundation support.

WDNR

Various actions
underway.
Continued...

5-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Areas of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Continue maintenance of
MMSD conveyance system
modeling tools

X

X

X

MMSD

The MMSD continues
this effort, which is a
key element in point
source (CSO and
SSO) control efforts.

Continue maintenance of
watershed-wide riverine water
quality models (LSPC)

X

X

X

MMSD and
SEWRPC

The MMSD and
SEWRPC support
through the WRP.

Green Milwaukee

X

X

Xl

City of Milwaukee
and MMSD

Projects underway and
MMSD is developing
Green Infrastructure
Plan.

Management Strategy
(FPOP)

Notes:
Additional detail on all strategies can be found in the RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50,
Chapters X and XI
Cl- = Chlorides
CSO = Combined Sewer Overflow
DATCP = Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
FC = Fecal coliform
FPOP = Facilities, Policies, Operational Improvements, Programs
LSPC = Loading simulation program in C++: a watershed modeling system that includes
algorithms for simulating hydrology, sediment, and general water quality
NGO = Non-governmental organization
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization

Comment

POWTs = Private onsite wastewater treatment system
SEWRPC = Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
SSO = Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watershed Trust, Inc.
TSS = Total suspended solids
USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
USGS = United State Geological Survey
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WRP = Watershed restoration plan

5-24

Watershed Restoration Plan

5.5

Menomonee River

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

Table 5-3 summarizes all of the management strategies that were recommended in the
RWQMPU but are not actively being implemented in the Menomonee River watershed. The
table includes the focus area the strategy addresses, the responsible agencies for initiating the
implementation of the management strategy, and a comment on the management strategy as of
October 2009.
For additional detailed information, Chapters X and XI of the RWQMPU can be viewed at the
following website:
http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/pr/pr-050_part-1_water_quality_plan_for_greater_mke_
watersheds.pdf

5-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Consider more intensive
fisheries management
measures where warranted

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
X

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
WDNR

Comment
As fish passage
impediments are
eliminated, the
applicability of this
program will be
increased.

Conduct assessments and
evaluations on the
significance for public health
and aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife of the presence of
pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in
surface waters

X

MMSD

MMSD is working with
various entities in the
developing research on
this issue.

Implement collection
programs for expired and
unused household
pharmaceuticals

X

MMSD

MMSD’s program
provides sound
implementation for this
issue.

WDNR and USGS
with support from
MMSD

Program should be
expanded as
recommended in the
2020 FP and
RWQMPU.

Establish long-term fisheries
and macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations

X

Continued...

5-26

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Establish long-term aquatic
habitat monitoring stations

Establish long-term water
quality monitoring programs
for areas outside of MMSD
service area

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
X

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

X

X

X

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
WDNR and USGS
with support from
MMSD

Comment
Program should be
expanded as
recommended in the
2020 FP and
RWQMPU.

WDNR and USGS
with support from
MMSD

Program should be
expanded as
recommended in the
2020 FP and
RWQMPU.

Follow recommendations of
the regional water supply
plan regarding maintenance
of groundwater recharge
areas

X

WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities

Preservation of
groundwater discharge
zones in the watershed
will preserve base flow
to waterways.

Utilize groundwater
sustainability guidance
results in evaluating the
sustainability of proposed
developments and in the
conduct of local land use
planning

X

WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities

Sustaining
groundwater in the
watershed will preserve
base flow to
waterways.

Continued...

5-27

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed

Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Improve Aesthetics

Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)

Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
X

Notes:
Additional detail on all strategies can be found in the RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50,
Chapters X and XI
2020 FP = MMSD 2020 Facilities Plan
Cl- = Chlorides
FC = Fecal coliform
FPOP = Facilities, Policies, Operational Improvements and Programs
NGO = Non-Governmental Organization

Nutrients
(Phosphorus)

Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
WisDOT, MMSD,
NGOs, and
municipalities

Comment
Establish a program to
improve aesthetics in
selected areas
throughout the
watershed.

RWQMPU = Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
RWQMPU = Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
TSS = Total suspended solids
USGS = United States Geological Survey
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation

5-28

Watershed Restoration Plan

5.6

Menomonee River

Summary

Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 give a summary of the management strategies (FPOPs) that are being
implemented or available for implementation to improve bacteria (public health), habitat, and
nutrient (phosphorus) loading in the Menomonee River watershed.
These strategies will be evaluated in the next chapter in terms of their ability to reduce loads to
the watershed. The strategies will be prioritized based upon their anticipated impact on
improving water quality and habitat.

5-29

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 5A

1

A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Widespread Aquatic Toxicity and

2

Water Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales

3

Steven R. Corsi*,1, David J. Graczyk1, Steven W. Geis2, Nathaniel L. Booth1, Kevin D. Richards1

4

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA; 2Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene,

5

Madison, Wisconsin, USA

6

AUTHOR EMAIL ADDRESS: srcorsi@usgs.gov

7

Corresponding author phone: (608) 821-3835; fax: (608) 821-3817; email: srcorsi@usgs.gov.

8

ABSTRACT

9

While road salt runoff influence on water quality has been documented for at least forty years, a new

10

perspective on the severity of aquatic toxicity impact was gained by a focused research effort directed

11

at winter runoff periods. Dramatic impacts were observed on local, regional, and national scales.

12

Locally, samples from 7 of 13 Milwaukee area streams during two road salt runoff events exhibited

13

toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas bioassays and had chloride concentrations up

14

to 6,470 mg/L. In long term testing, Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee was sampled 37 times from

15

1996 to 2008 with resulting chloride concentrations up to 7,730 mg/L. Toxicity was observed in 72%

16

of these samples in chronic bioassays and 43% in acute bioassays. Regionally in eastern and southern

17

Wisconsin, continuous specific conductance sensors were deployed as chloride surrogates in 11

18

watersheds with urban land use ranging from 6% to 100%. Elevated specific conductance was present

19

during cold-weather months at all sites with continuing effects during warm weather months at sites

20

with the greatest effect. Specific conductance was measured as high as 30,800 µS/cm (Cl = 11,200

21

mg/L). Estimated chloride concentrations exceeded USEPA acute water quality criteria (860 mg/L) at

1

1

55% of these sites and chronic (230 mg/L) water quality criteria at 100% of these sites. Nationally,

2

USGS historical chloride data was examined for 13 northern and 4 southern metropolitan areas.

3

Chloride concentrations exceeded USEPA water quality criteria at 51% (acute criteria) and 23%

4

(chronic criteria) of the 168 northern monitoring locations during cold-weather months. Only 15%

5

(chronic) and 1% (acute) of sites exceeded criteria during warm-weather months. At southern sites, 2%

6

and 4% of sites had samples that exceeded chronic water quality criteria during cold- and warm-

7

weather months respectively; no samples at southern sites exceeded acute criteria.

8

BRIEF: Road salt has widespread aquatic toxicity and water quality impacts on urban streams

9
10

Introduction

11

and transportation corridors. Four broad issues suggest that road salt runoff is a serious and increasing

12

threat to the nation’s receiving waters. First, there is a multitude of historical evidence documenting

13

detrimental effects of road salt on water chemistry and aquatic life. This issue was recognized at least

14

as early as the 1960’s (1). Studies have continued each decade since with additional and more

15

comprehensive evidence of water quality impacts from road salt. A small sampling of these studies

16

include reporting of specific water quality impacts such as increased chloride and sodium

17

concentrations, seasonality, climatic and land use influence, density gradients, and influence on

18

sediment pore water, mixing and alteration of turnover in lakes (2-5), and aquatic toxicity impacts (2,

19

6, 7, 7). Second, road salt usage in the United States has increased steadily beginning in the 1940’s

20

through

21

production-sales, (8)). Average annual salt sales in the United States for deicing purposes by decade

22

beginning in 1940 were 0.28 (1940’s), 1.1 (1950’s), 4.1 (1960’s), 8.7 (1970’s), 8.8 (1980’s), 13.0

23

(1990’s), and 16.0 (2000-08) million metric tons per year. Third, urban development is increasing each

Road salt runoff poses an increasing threat to aquatic ecosystems with influence from urban land use

the

current

decade

(http://www.saltinstitute.org/Production-industry/Facts-figures/US-

2

1

year (9) which adds to the impervious area on which winter deicing operations are conducted. This

2

collective information suggests that the increasing road salt usage trends of the previous seven decades

3

will likely continue. Fourth, chloride and to a large degree Na, the two primary ions in road salt, remain

4

in solution, making it difficult with present day technology to design effective management practices

5

for reduction of road salt loadings to receiving waters after application. Currently, reduction in usage

6

appears to be the only effective road salt runoff management strategy.

7

In addition to effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, other detrimental impacts from road

8

salt applications include damage to terrestrial vegetation, degraded soil biota, increased soil

9

salinization, toxicity to terrestrial wildlife, increased exposure to ferrocyanides (an anti-caking

10

additive), and corrosion of automobiles and transportation infrastructure (7, 10).

11
12

Road salt is commonly applied in granular form or as brine in liquid form on paved surfaces to

13

prevent snow and ice buildup on roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways that could otherwise

14

pose automobile and pedestrian safety hazards. Usage includes application by municipalities, county -

15

and state road maintenance departments, institutions, private contractors, private business owners, and

16

homeowners. A number of application technologies are currently in use, some of which have been

17

described in a report that examined application methods for reducing environmental impact (10).

18

Roadway Weather Information Systems are used by some applicators for timely forecasting of deicing

19

events enabling early deployment of application equipment. Trucks of various size are used to transport

20

the salt, and “spinners” or “conveyors” mounted on the trucks are used to deliver salt from the truck to

21

the pavement. Ground speed controlled salt applicators are used by some to vary application based on

22

vehicle speed and achieve a consistent application rate independent of the speed of the vehicle. Some

23

trucks carry liquid pre-wetting agents such as salt brine or magnesium chloride that is applied to road

24

salt prior to application. This enhances bonding between road salt and the pavement or ice surface

3

1

minimizing the “bounce” or overspray effects and reducing overall application needs. Brine or other

2

liquid deicers are also used as anti-icers by applying them directly to the pavement before freezing

3

precipitation events, reducing the bond between snow or ice and the pavement surface.

4
5

The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of road salt runoff on surface water and

6

aquatic organisms. To achieve this, water quality investigations were conducted on a local and regional

7

scale. On a national scale, analysis of historical data was conducted for 17 metropolitan areas in the

8

U.S. In the Milwaukee metropolitan area, streams were sampled for chloride, specific conductance, and

9

aquatic toxicity to assess direct impact on aquatic organisms. In southern and eastern Wisconsin,

10

streams were monitored continuously for specific conductance, a surrogate for chloride, to assess

11

potential impact on aquatic organisms. Nationally, data were mined from the USGS National Water

12

Information System (NWIS) for chloride concentrations from streams sampled between 1969 and

13

2008. Data were compared to USEPA water quality criteria and analyzed for seasonality as a measure

14

of the national influence of road salt runoff.

15
16

Methods

17

Study Sites:

18

Local scale: Twelve streams in the Milwaukee metropolitan area and one reference stream

19

north of Milwaukee were sampled in February and March 2007 for determination of water chemistry

20

and aquatic toxicity (Table 1, Figure 1). Twelve of the streams had substantial urban land use

21

contribution and the reference stream had 80% natural areas and no urban land use (Parnell Creek).

22

Drainage areas of these streams ranged from 16.4 km2 (6.33 mi2) at Willow Creek to 1833 km2 (872

23

mi2) at the Milwaukee River (Table 1). A 14th stream, Wilson Park Creek, was monitored selectively

24

from 1997 through 2007 during deicing periods. Sample results from these 14 streams reported in this
4

1

paper include chloride, specific conductance, and bioassays using Pimephales promelas and

2

Ceriodaphnia dubia.

3

Table 1. Watershed characteristics for study sites in Wisconsin organized by geographic location.

4

Insert Table 1 here.

5
6

5

1
2

Figure 1. Location of study sites in Wisconsin and metropolitan areas in the United States used for
aquatic toxicity evaluation from road salt.

3

Insert Figure 1 here.

4
5

Regional scope: Eleven streams in central and southern Wisconsin were monitored using

6

continuous specific conductance sensors with resulting data used as an indication of road salt runoff

7

(Table 1, Figure 1). These streams represent a gradient of land use including urban influence ranging

8

from 6.0% to 100%.

9
10

National scope: Individual water quality samples for chloride in 17 major metropolitan areas around

11

the country were retrieved from NWIS, the U.S. Geological Survey national water quality database

12

(Figure 1). Candidate streams were selected based on the latitude and longitude of the monitoring

13

location and it’s proximity to major urban land-use areas. Streams ultimately chosen for this study

14

included streams that were sampled for chloride between 1969 and 2008, had at least 12 samples in the

15

cold-weather months (November to April) and 12 samples in the warm-weather months (May to

16

October), and a drainage area of less than 2600 km2. A total of 12005 samples from 162 sites in the

17

northern part of the United States and 2378 samples from 50 sites in the southern part of the United

18

States (south of St. Louis) were used.

19
20

Water-Quality Sampling: For the 13 Milwaukee area streams, sampling periods were targeted at

21

events with road salt application and subsequent runoff. Continuous specific conductance data was

22

available real-time at Wilson Park Creek and was used as an indicator of road salt presence in

23

Milwaukee area streams for these sampling events. A threshold of 10,000 µS/cm in Wilson Park Creek

24

was considered to signify substantial road salt influence and was therefore used to initiate sample

25

collection at these sites. Water-quality samples were collected manually in these streams during the
6

1

February 26 and March 7, 2007 sampling periods. For the wadeable streams, samples were collected by

2

submerging sample bottles directly into the stream approximately at the center of the stream. For the

3

non-wadeable streams, sample bottles were lowered into the water with a weighted-bottle sampler from

4

a bridge at three locations across the stream (11). Comparison of the relation between chloride and

5

specific conductance was used to assess potential bias in results. All samples were within 10% of the

6

resulting linear regression except those with chloride concentration less than 230 mg/L where chloride

7

and sodium are no longer the dominant ions influencing specific conductance. Flow-weighted

8

composite samples were collected at Wilson Park Creek from 1997 through 2007 using refrigerated

9

automatic samplers and Teflon-lined polyethylene sample tubing (model 3700R, Isco Industries,

10

Lincoln, Nebraska). Specific details of the sampling protocol used to collect and process water samples

11

from this site have been previously published (12).

12

Weather data was retrieved from three nearby NOAA weather stations (General Mitchell

13

International Airport, Mount Mary, and Germantown). On February 24, 25 and 26, 2007 average

14

snowfall was 16, 15 and 2 cm (0.9, 1.7, and 0.2 cm water equivalent), and maximum air temperatures

15

were -0.5o, 2.8

16

activities on roads, parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks in the Milwaukee area. On March 7, there

17

was an average of 5.7 cm of snow (0.4 cm water equivalent), and maximum air temperature of 0.5oC.

18

This was not enough snow to trigger a general plowing however salt was applied on paved surfaces to

19

melt snow and ice. Salt application and temperatures greater than 0oC for both of these events resulted

20

in runoff from impervious areas leading to storm sewers, and eventually to receiving streams.

o

and 2.8oC respectively. This snowfall triggered plowing operations and salt deicing

21

Measurements from continuously deployed specific conductance sensors were recorded at least every

22

hour and as frequently as every 5-min depending on the individual site and specific hydrologic

23

conditions. Instantaneous specific conductance was measured in the 13 Milwaukee area streams at the

7

1

time of the 2007 sampling periods. All specific conductance sensors were maintained in accordance

2

with standard USGS methods (13).

3
4

Analytical methods:

Chloride analyses for Wisconsin samples were done at the Wisconsin

5

State Laboratory of Hygiene using USEPA method 325.2. The method quantification limit was 2.0

6

mg/L. Average spike recovery during the study period was 100.6% with a standard deviation of 3.3%

7

(n=472). Duplicate analyses resulted in an average relative percent difference of 0.86% with a standard

8

deviation of 1.37% (n = 473).

9
10

Toxicity Tests. Pimephales promelas and C. dubia bioassays were conduced at the WSLH in

11

Madison, Wisconsin in accordance with standard U.S. EPA methods (14-16) and modified U.S. EPA

12

methods (16) to determine acute (lethal endpoints) and chronic effects (sublethal endpoints) for water

13

samples. Further description of bioassay methods is provided in the supporting information.

14

The 25% inhibition concentrations (IC 25 ) were computed using the IC P method developed by the

15

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (17).

16
17

Results

18

in the Milwaukee metropolitan area exhibited toxicity in samples collected during road salt application

19

periods in February and March, 2007 (Figure 2). Adverse response in C. dubia tests occurred in

20

samples with chloride concentrations of 1,610 mg/L or greater mg/L. Adverse response in Pimephales

21

promelas tests occurred in samples with chloride concentrations of 2,940 mg/L or greater. The IC 25

22

values computed using measured chloride concentrations in these stream samples were 1,050 mg/L for

23

C. dubia and 1,810 mg/L for Pimephales promelas. These values are similar to those reported by

24

Environment Canada in a summary of numerous laboratory studies on road salt (7). Chloride

Runoff samples in the Milwaukee Area. Results from seven of the 12 urban-influenced watersheds

8

1

concentration was elevated above the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria concentration of 860 mg/L in

2

eight of these samples and above the EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria concentration of 230 mg/L in

3

11 of these samples indicating potential for aquatic toxicity effects. A sample collected at the rural

4

reference site during the February sampling period had a chloride concentration of 20.4 mg/L and did

5

not exhibit toxicity.

6
7

Specific conductance results from continuous monitoring in Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee during

8

2007 indicates that conditions similar to the February and March 2007 sampling periods were common

9

occurrences during the cold-weather period of 2007 (Figure 3).

10
11

Insert Fig 2 here

12

Figure 2. Chronic bioassay results in relation to chloride concentration in samples collected from 13

13

streams in the Milwaukee, WI metropolitan area, February-March, 2007: (A) C. dubia survival and

14

mean young produced and (B) Pimephales promelas survival and mean weight.

15
16

Insert Fig 3 here

17
18

Figure 3. Specific conductance in Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee, WI during 2007 in reference to

19

aquatic toxicity sampling periods (triangles) for 13 Milwaukee area streams.

20
21
22

Long-term toxicity from road salt: Results from 37 samples collected from 1997 to 2007 at Wilson

23

Park Creek in Milwaukee demonstrate long-term toxicity effects in numerous samples and a distinct

9

1

relation to chloride concentration (Figure 4). Concentrations at which chronic result effects are

2

observed from this long-term sampling program are very similar to corresponding concentrations

3

where chronic effects were observed from the 2007 sampling events in the Milwaukee metropolitan

4

area. In chronic C. dubia assays, no young were produced when chloride concentration was 1770 mg/L

5

or greater (43% of samples) and complete mortality was observed at chloride concentrations of 2,420

6

and greater (38% of samples) with initial toxic effects beginning between 600 and 1,100 mg/L. It is

7

difficult to determine the exact concentration road salt effects begin for chronic C. dubia assays due to

8

variability and potential confounding contaminants in urban runoff. Mortality was also observed in

9

acute C. dubia assays for all samples with chloride concentrations greater than 1900 mg/L. In chronic

10

Pimephales promelas assays, reduced weight and survival is present when concentrations are 2920

11

mg/L or greater. In Pimephales promelas acute assays, only two samples were influenced with initial

12

effects occurring between 4,660 and 6,290 mg/L.

13
14

10

1

Insert Fig 4 here

2
3

Figure 4. Bioassay results in relation to chloride concentration in samples collected from Wilson Park

4

Creek in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1997-2007: (A) C. dubia survival and mean young produced in

5

chronic bioassays, (B) Pimephales promelas survival and mean weight in chronic bioassays, (C) C.

6

dubia survival in acute bioassays, and (D) Pimephales promelas survival in acute bioassays.

7
8

Regional scale influence: Continuous monitoring of road salt runoff. Eleven streams in urban

9

regions of Wisconsin were monitored with continuous specific conductance sensors during cold- and

10

warm-weather periods selectively from 1998 to 2008 (Table 1). Between one and 10 years of data were

11

available depending on the individual site. Urban land use percentage in these watersheds varied

12

between 6.0 and 100% (Table 1). Linear regression from concurrent analysis of chloride and specific

13

conductance in samples from these streams resulted in R2 = 0.994. However, residuals for specific

14

conductance less than 1,400 µS/cm were negatively biased indicating influence of other ions on

15

specific conductance below this level. Constraining data in the regression to include only samples with

16

specific conductance greater than 1,400 µS/cm reduced negative bias at low concentrations

17

considerably and resulted in a line with a slope of 0.374 and intercept of -328 (R2 = 0.997, figure S1 in

18

supporting information). This regression is used for the remainder of this paper to provide chloride

19

concentration estimates (referred to as Cl est ) from measurement of specific conductance. The maximum

20

observed specific conductance in these streams increased with increasing urban land use (Figure 5).

21

The maximum Cl est for seven of these sites exceeded the USEPA acute water quality criteria value of

22

860 mg/L (18). The maximum Cl est at all 11 sites exceeded USEPA chronic water quality criteria value

23

of 230 mg/L (18) with a maximum Cl est of 289 mg/L for the least impacted stream.

24
11

1
2

Insert Fig 5 here

3
4

Figure 5. Maximum specific conductance compared to urban land use percentage in 11 Wisconsin

5

streams with reference to US Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for chloride (18).

6
7

The highest continuous specific conductance results at these eleven sites occurred specifically during

8

cold-weather months (Figure 6). The most dramatic impacts from road salt runoff were observed at

9

Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in Milwaukee with specific conductance often exceeding 10,000

10

µS/cm (Cl est = 3,4l0) and at times exceeding 20,000 µS/cm (Cl est = 7,150 mg/L, Figure 6A). Both of

11

these watersheds have urban land use of 98% or greater. Maximum monthly specific conductance at

12

four sites with a medium influence ranged between 3,000 and 8,000 µS/cm (Figure 6B). These sites

13

had 26 – 69% urban land use. Maximum monthly values at four sites with low influence were still

14

substantially impacted by chloride in cold-weather months, but maximum monthly specific

15

conductance was less than 3,000 µS/cm (Figure 6B). These sites had 6.0 – 30 % urban land use. While

16

most of these watersheds were small to medium in size with a drainage area of 25 to 280 km2, the

17

Milwaukee River at Milwaukee has a drainage area of 1,800 km2 and still was impacted by road salt

18

runoff in cold-weather months with a maximum specific conductance of 2,850 µS/cm. In all months,

19

the average monthly maximum specific conductance was greatest in the sites with urban land use of

20

98% or greater followed by those with 26-69% urban land use, and least in sites with less than 26%

21

urban land use (Table 1, Figure 6).

22
23

In some cases, specific conductance decreased through the warm-weather months, reaching a

24

minimum in October (Figure 6C). Specific conductance in the highly urban watersheds, Wilson Park
12

1

Creek and Lincoln Creek, decreased from May through October by 34% and 39% respectively (Figure

2

6). The average monthly maximum in these two streams was greater than 1,200 µS/cm throughout the

3

entire year. Specific conductance data from Oak Creek (63% urban land use) also decreased steadily

4

from May through October with a total decrease of 26%. Other sites either did not have sufficient data

5

to evaluate warm-weather conditions or did not exhibit this effect.

6
7

Figure 6. Monthly maximum specific conductance from continuous monitoring at 11 sites in

8

Wisconsin over a gradient of urban influence.

9

Insert Fig 6 here

10
11

National scope. USGS chloride sample results from streams near metropolitan areas were retrieved

12

from 1969 to 2008 for assessment of potential road salt influence throughout the country and to

13

provide context to the more intensive Wisconsin study results (Figure 7). The maximum number of

14

sites per metropolitan area was 29 (Denver) and the maximum number of samples per metropolitan

15

area was 1,690 (Cleveland).

16
17

A total of 898 samples were collected and analyzed for chloride at 21 monitoring locations within the

18

Milwaukee area. Results exceeded 230 mg/L chloride in at least one sample at 90% of monitoring sites

19

during cold-weather months and 33% of monitoring sites during warm-weather months (Figure 7A).

20

Similarly, 57% of these monitoring sites exceeded 860 mg/L chloride in at least one sample during

21

cold-weather months, and none during warm-weather months (Figure 7B).

22
23

Most of the metropolitan areas included in the analysis in the northern part of the United States

24

demonstrated the same pattern as the Milwaukee area sites. A total of 51% of all 168 represented
13

1

northern monitoring locations had at least one sample with concentrations exceeding 230 mg/L during

2

cold-weather months and 15% during warm-weather months. A total of 23 % of northern monitoring

3

locations had at least one sample with concentrations exceeding 860 mg/L during cold-weather months

4

and 1% during warm-weather months. Ten of thirteen metropolitan areas had more monitoring sites

5

that had a chloride sample result exceeding 230 mg/L during cold-weather months than during warm-

6

weather months. Nine metropolitan areas had more monitoring sites with sample results that exceeded

7

860 mg/L during cold-weather months than during warm-weather months. Only two northern

8

metropolitan areas had monitoring sites with concentrations greater than 860 mg/L during warm-

9

weather months.

10
11

At monitoring locations in the four southern metropolitan areas, few samples exceeded the water

12

quality criteria concentrations and no common seasonal pattern was detected. Only 2% and 4% of

13

monitoring locations had samples exceeding 230 mg/L during warm- and cold-weather months

14

respectively; samples from the southern sites did not exceed 860 mg/L. Several other southern

15

metropolitan areas were analyzed but not included because monitoring locations either had insufficient

16

data or marine-water influence.

17
18

14

Insert Fig 7 here
Figure 7. Comparison of chloride concentrations to chronic (A) and acute (B) USEPA water quality criteria for warm weather months and
cold weather months in streams from northern and southern urban areas. Bars indicate the percent of sites for each Metropolitan area that
had at least one sample result greater than the water quality criteria.

15

1
2

Discussion

3

local, regional, and national scales. The presented long- and short-term runoff sampling programs in

4

Wisconsin demonstrate a substantial effect from road salt on stream water quality and aquatic life.

5

Bioassay results from runoff events confirm that the observed high concentrations of road salt cause

6

acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. In addition, continuous specific conductance results

7

indicate that elevated levels of road salt were present multiple times per year each year of monitoring. It

8

is likely that populations of aquatic organisms in these streams and others with such road salt influence

9

are limited to salt-tolerant species. Effects on aquatic organisms have previously been demonstrated

10

Detrimental impacts from road salt runoff to surface water presented in this study were evident on

using a salt tolerance biotic index (Chloride Contamination Index, CCI) in Toronto area streams (19).

11
12

The results from continuous monitoring of specific conductance in Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in

13

Milwaukee indicate that exposures to elevated levels of chloride in these streams were common for

14

extended periods of time, even through the summer months. These results have broad implications

15

considering that traditional “chronic” toxicity assessments consider relatively short time periods of 7-14

16

days. Exposures over multiple months add a level of complexity to traditional toxicity assessments.

17

Similar to results from Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in Milwaukee, a study of groundwater influence

18

on stream chemistry in Massachusetts confirmed that chloride from highway deicing applications

19

persisted throughout the year as a source of contamination to nearby surface water (20). Elevated

20

chloride concentrations were present in groundwater, interflow, and stream water even during warm-

21

weather months.

22
23

In addition to stream-water quality, previous studies have found a detrimental influence from road salt

24

on water quality in lakes and groundwater. A study of road salt influence in the Twin Cities

25

Metropolitan Area of Minnesota demonstrated a degradation of water quality in urban lakes due to

26

application of road salt (5). Concentrations of sodium and chloride in these lakes were 10 and 25 times

16

1

higher, respectively, than nearby non-urban lakes. Long-term data analysis from these lakes indicated an

2

increasing trend in lake salinity over 25 years that was correlated to the purchase of road salt by the state

3

of Minnesota. A study of groundwater in Ohio indicated that chloride concentration in wells near regular

4

deicing activity in the northern part of the state were elevated, with multi-year means ranging from 124-

5

345 mg/L (21). Concentrations at these sites rarely returned to background concentrations (7-37 mg/L)

6

through the study period.

7
8

The analysis of historical chloride data from urban areas around the country indicated potential for

9

considerable and widespread impact from road salt on surface water quality and aquatic life. Despite the

10

limitation that sample results from these selected areas were from numerous studies not necessarily

11

designed to capture periods of road salt runoff, the influence of road salt is clear. Streams with urban

12

influence throughout the country in areas where road salt is applied are at risk for substantial

13

contamination and detrimental effect on aquatic life.

14
15

Some research on the influence of urban land use on aquatic life in streams has previously identified a

16

level of 7-12% impervious surface percentage where decreases in biological integrity are observed (22,

17

23) while recent research indicates that stream degradation may begin with even lower levels of urban

18

development (24). Much of the work investigating this aquatic life degradation have focused on ambient

19

water chemistry, habitat and other physical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors (25). The relation of

20

chloride concentrations and specific conductance with urban land use shown in this study and a recent

21

study of the northern United States (26) indicates that road salt runoff is an important factor in the

22

biological integrity of urban streams in the northern United States. While chloride sampling has been

23

included in previous evaluations of urban stream water quality (24), water quality sampling did not

24

specifically focus on periods of winter runoff and may not fully represent the severity of road salt

25

influence.

26

17

1

To better understand the relation between urban land use and stream biology, focused monitoring

2

should be done to characterize the range of chloride concentrations and duration of road salt influence in

3

streams during deicing periods. However, because of the episodic nature of road salt runoff, the full

4

range of in-stream road salt influence is difficult to characterize without use of continuous monitoring

5

and event monitoring focusing on deicing periods. Manual sampling during critical road salt runoff

6

periods is difficult because of inclement weather and poor driving conditions during freezing

7

precipitation. A periodic or fixed-interval sampling plan that does not focus on deicing events will not

8

fully characterize road salt influence except by happenstance.

9

Environmental management or mitigation of this issue is complex. Application of road salt to clear

10

streets and parking lots of snow and ice is conducted for human safety and for improved societal

11

function. Management solutions must take into account environmental issues as well as political,

12

economic, and safety aspects. Balancing all of these factors is necessary to achieve a solution that is

13

acceptable by all affected people as well as maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Added to

14

these issues is the diversity of applicators in urban areas. City maintenance crews deice roadways, public

15

parking lots and sidewalks while a host of private applicators deice commercial, institutional and

16

industrial areas, and home owners apply deicers to residential driveways and sidewalks. Alternative

17

chemicals are available (at higher costs), but each of the alternative chemicals have unique

18

environmental and/or economic impacts as well. For example, use of organic salts such as calcium

19

magnesium acetate would reduce chloride loading, but would increase biochemical oxygen demand and

20

increase potential for oxygen depletion in receiving waters. The increasing trends in road salt usage and

21

expanding urban development do not offer promise that reduction of the environmental impact of road

22

salt is forthcoming in the near future. Greater aquatic toxicity and water quality impacts seem likely if

23

these trends continue. Regardless of methods chosen, reducing the impact of road salt on the

24

environment will take a substantial and sustained effort coupled with consideration of numerous

25

interconnected factors.

18

1

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Support for this research was provided by Milwaukee Metropolitan

2

Sewerage District, General Mitchell International Airport, and the U.S. Geological Survey. We thank the

3

biomonitoring and inorganic chemistry units of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene as well as

4

many people in the U.S. Geological Survey for their contributions. Any use of trade, product, or firm

5

names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

6
7

Supporting Information Available

8

conductance. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

9

A description of bioassay methods and a graph of the relation between chloride and specific

References

10
11

1. Judd, J.H. Effect of Salt Runoff from Street Deicing on a Small Lake. The University of Wisconsin Madison: Madison, Wisconsin, 1969;

12
13
14

2. Hanes, R.E.; Zelazny, L.W.; Blaser, R.E. Effects of Deicing Salts on Water Quality and Biota-Literature Review and Recommended Research. National Cooperative Highway Research Program:
Washington, DC, 1976; Vol. NCHRP report 91.

15
16

3. Scott, W.S. An analysis of factors influencing deicing salt levels in streams. J. Environ. Manage.
1981, 13, 269-287.

17
18

4. Sorenson, D.L.; Mortenson, V.; Zollinger, R.L. A review and synthesis of the impacts of road salting
on water quality. Utah Department of Transportation: Salt Lake City, UT, 1996; Vol. UT-95.08.

19
20

5. Novotny, E.V.; Murphy, D.; Stefan, H.G. Increase of urban lake salinity by road deicing salt. Sci.
Total Environ. 2008, 406, 131-144.

21
22
23

6. Williams, D.D.; Williams, N.E.; Cao, Y. Spatial differences in macroinvertebrate community
structure in springs in southeastern Ontario in relation to their chemical and physical environments. Can.
J. Zool. 1997, 75, 1404-1414.

24
25

7. Environment Canada Priority Substances List Assessment Report Road Salts. Environment Canada:
Canada, 2001;

26
27

8. Kelly, T.D. and Matos, G.R. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the
United States. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2005; Vol. Data Series 140.

28
29
30

9. Lubowski, R.N.; Vesterby, M.; Bucholtz, S.; Baez, A.; Roberts, M.J. Major Uses of Land in the
United States, 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service:
Washington, DC, 2006; Vol. EIB-14.

31
32
33

10. Levelton Consultants Ltd. Guidelines for the Selection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to
Mitigate Environmental Impacts. National Cooperative Highway Research Program: Washington, DC,
2007; Vol. 577.

19

1
2

11. U.S. Geological Survey Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0). U.S. Geological Survey: 2006; Vol.
Book 9, Chap. A4.

3
4
5

12. Corsi, S.R.; Booth, N.L.; Hall, D.W. Aircraft and runway deicers at General Mitchell International
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1. Biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen in
receiving streams. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 1474-1482.

6
7
8

13. Gibs, J.; Wilde, F.D.; Heckathorn, H.A. Use of miltiparameter instruments for routine field
measurements. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2007; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., section 6.8.

9
10

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA: Washington, DC, 2002;

11
12
13

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA: Washington, DC, 2002; Vol. EPA-821R-02-013.

14
15
16

16. Geis, S.W.; Fleming, K.; Mager, A.; Reynolds, L. Modifications to the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas) chronic test method to remove mortality due to pathogenic organisms. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 2003, 22, 2400-2404.

17

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICp calculation program, Release 1.0. 1988,

18
19

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride--1988.
Washington, DC, 1988; Vol. EPA 440/5-88-001.

20
21
22

19. Williams, D.D.; Williams, N.E.; Cao, Y. Road salt contamination of groundwater in a major
metropolitan area and development of a biological index to monitor its impact. Water Res. 2000, 34,
127-138.

23
24

20. Ostendorf, D.W.; Peeling, D.C.; Mitchell, T.J.; Pollock, S.J. Chloride persistence in a deiced access
road drainage system. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 1756-1770.

25
26
27

21. Jones, A.L. and Sroka, B.N. Effects of highway deicing chemicals on shallow unconsolidated
aquifers in Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 1997; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2004-5150.

28
29

22. Wang, L. and Kanehl, P. Influences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on
macroinvertebrates in cold water streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39, 1181-1196.

30
31

23. Wang, L.; Lyons, J.; Kanehl, P.; Bannerman, R. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish
across multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage. 2001, 28, 255-266.

32
33
34
35

24. Richards, K.D.; Scudder, B.C.; Fitzpatrick, F.A.; Steuer, J.J.; Bell, A.H.; Peppler, M.C.; Stewart,
J.S.; Harris, M.A. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems Along an Agriculture-to-Urban Landuse Gradient, Milwaukee to Green Bay, Wisconsin, 2003-2004. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA,
2009; Vol. SIR 2006-5101-C.

36
37
38

25. Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan II, R.P. The
urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthological Soc.
2005, 24, 706-723.

20

1
2
3

26. Mullaney, J.R.; Lorenz, D.L.; Arntson, A.D. Chloride in groundwater and surface water in areas
underlain by the glacial aquifer system, northern United States. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA,
2009; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5086.

4

21

Cleveland

Minneapolis

Milwaukee Detroit
Chicago
Indianapolis
Columbus
St. Louis

Salt Lake City
Denver

Hartford
Philadelphia
Washington, DC

Tulsa
Dallas

Atlanta

San Antonio

92°

88°

46°

WISCONSIN

0

50

100 Kilometers

Monitoring
locations

14 locations near
Milwaukee, WI

43°

FIGURE 1

A
120%
Survival

C. Dubia
Survival and young produced
(percent of control)

100%

Young produced

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Chloride (mg/L)

B
140%
Fathead Minnow

Survival

Survival and weight
(percent of control)

120%

Weight

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Chloride (mg/L)

FIGURE 2

5000

6000

7000

14000

Aquatic toxicity
sampling period

Specific Conductance (µS/cm)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

FIGURE 3

April

May

Chronic test results

A

Pimephales Promelas
160

160
140
120

Survival

100

Weight

140

Young produced

Weight and survival
(percent of control)

Young produced and survival
(percent of control)

C. dubia

B

80
60
40
20

Survival

120
100
80
60
40
20

0
0

2000

4000

6000

0

8000

0

Chloride (mg/L)

2000

4000

6000

8000

Chloride (mg/L)

Acute test results

C
C. dubia

120

120
Survival

100

Survival percentage

Survival percentage

D
Pimephales promelas

80
60
40
20
0

Survival

100
80
60
40
20
0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0

Chloride (mg/L)

2000

4000
Chloride (mg/L)

FIGURE 4

6000

8000

Maximum specific conductance
Estimated USEPA water-quality criteria
Acute
Chronic

30000
20000
10000
5000

10000

1000
230
1000

0

10

20

30
40
50
60
70
Urban land use percentage

FIGURE 5

80

90

100

Chloride (mg/L)

Maximum specific conductance (μS/cm)

100000

A

Specific Conductance (µS/cm)

32000

Full year
High influence sites

24000

16000

8000

Au
gu
st
Se
pt
em
be
r
O
ct
ob
er

Ju
ly

ay

Ju
ne

M

Ap
ri l

N
ov
em
be
D
r
ec
em
be
r
Ja
nu
ar
y
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch

0

B

Specific Conductance (µS/cm)

8000

Full year
Low-medium influence sites

6000

4000

2000

er

r
be

ct
O

em

Se

pt

ob

st

Au

gu

ly
Ju

ne
Ju

ay
M

ril
Ap

ch

M

ar

ry

y
Fe

br

ua

r

ar
nu

Ja

be
em

ec
D

N

ov

em

be

r

0

C
3200

Specific Conductance (µS/cm)

Warm months
Low, medium, high influence
2400

1600

800

0

May

June

July

August

Maximum monthly maximum
Average monthly maximum
Minimum monthly maximum

September

Low SC influence (4 sites)
Medium SC influence (4 sites)
High SC influence (2 sites)
Estimated USEPA
water-quality criteria
Acute
Chronic

FIGURE 6

October

A
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Chronic Water Quality Criteria (230 mg/L)
Northern Sites

55%

16%
0%
Chicago

St. Louis Milwaukee

Detroit

Denver

Minn. Cleveland
St. Paul

B
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Southern Sites

Nov.–Apr.
May–Oct.

0%
0%
Indian- Columbus Salt Lake
apolis
City

0%
DC

0% 0%
Philadelphia

Hartfort,
CT

San
Antonio

0% 0%

0% 0%

0%

Atlanta

Dallas

Tulsa

2% 4%

All North All South

Acute Water Quality Criteria (860 mg/L)
Northern Sites

Southern Sites

Nov.–Apr.
May–Oct.

25%

Chicago
12/968/873

0%
0%
St. Louis Milwaukee
6/30/108

21/898/606

0%
Detroit
6/101/99

sites/Nov–Apr samples/May–Oct samples

0%
0%
Minn. Cleveland
St. Paul

Indianapolis

0% 0%
0%
Columbus Salt Lake
City

29/579/367 15/370/318 7/1690/1489

7/276/199

11/413/339

0%
Denver

0% 0%

0% 0%
DC
Philadelphia

12/706/339 17/276/230

Urban area

FIGURE 7

14/203/287

0% 0%
Hartfort,
CT

0% 0%
San
Antonio

0% 0%
Atlanta

0% 0%
Dallas

5/229/174

19/565/177

22/700/370

6/98/519

1% 0% 0%
0% 0%
Tulsa
All North All South
3/20/94

162/6739/5266

50/1383/995

Table 1. Watershed characteristics for study sites in Wisconsin organized by geographic location
Land use percentage
Drainage Area
Natural Areas1
(km2)
Monitoring location
USGS site ID
Urban
Agriculture
Milwaukee metropolitan area
24.8
98
0
2
Lincoln Creek at Milwaukee
040869416
89.9
30
44
25
Menomonee River at Menomonee Falls
04087030
51
44
38
18
Little Menomonee at Milwaukee
04087070
47.1
87
4
9
Underwood Creek at Wauwatosa
04087088
26.7
99
0
1
Honey Creek at Wauwatosa
04087119
318
61
25
15
Menomonee River at Wauwatosa
04087120
48.7
98
0
2
Kinnickinnic River at Milwaukee
04087159
Milwaukee River at Milwaukee
04087000
1800
16
54
30
Milwaukee River at Clybourne Ave
04087012
1833
17
53
30
Oak Creek at South Milwaukee

04087204

64.7

63

21

16

Root River at Greenfield

04087214

38.1

92

3

6

Root River near Franklin

04087220

127

67

15

18

Willow Creek near Germantown
Wilson Park Creek at Milwaukee

040870195
040871488

16.4
29.4

24
100

47
0

29
0

Green Bay area, Madison area, small communities, and rural
Duck Creek near Howard

04072150

280

6

74

20

Garners Creek at Kaukauna
Parnell Creek near Dundee

04084468
04086175

53.6

69

25

6

21.8

0

20

80

Pheasant Branch Creek at Middleton

05427948

47.4

26

67

7

W. Branch Starkweather Creek at Madison

05428600

31.3

50

42

8

Delavan Lake Inlet at Lake Lawn
Badger Mill Creek at Verona

05431017
05435943

56.5
52.6

6
39

66
49

28
12

1-Natural areas include forest, grasslands, wetlands and water.

Supporting Information
A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Widespread Aquatic Toxicity and
Water Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales
Steven R. Corsi1, David J. Graczyk1, Steven W. Geis2, Nathaniel L. Booth1, Kevin D. Richards1
1

U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin, 53562;
2

Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Madison, Wisconsin, 53718
(two total pages)

Methods
Toxicity Tests. Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia. dubia bioassays were conduced at the
WSLH in Madison, Wisconsin in accordance with standard U.S. EPA methods (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2002a); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b)) and modified U.S. EPA
methods (Geis et al. (2003)) to determine acute (lethal endpoints) and chronic effects (sublethal
endpoints) for the water samples. Static renewal acute tests were conducted at 20oC and chronic tests at
25oC. Both were conducted with a 16:8-hour light:dark cycle. Surface water samples collected during
road salt runoff periods were stored at 4oC upon delivery from the field. Aliquots were removed to
prepare test solutions daily. Samples were warmed in a water bath to the appropriate test temperature.
Surface water samples were assayed without dilution.
Pimephales promelas acute tests were initiated with 4-14 day old juveniles. Prior to 2006, each
replicate consisted of five fish, which was subsequently increased to ten fish per replicate. The fish
were placed in 250 ml plastic cups containing 200 ml of sample. Each treatment consisted of four
replicates per sample. Treatment solutions were renewed daily and fish were fed with live brine shrimp
two hours prior to the 48-h test renewal. The bioassay was ended at 96-h and survival was recorded as
the acute endpoint.
C. dubia acute tests were initiated with young less than 24-h old. Treatments consisted of four
replicates per sample containing five C. dubia per replicate. Test chambers were 30 ml plastic cups

each containing 15 ml sample volume. Test solutions were renewed at 24-h. The C. dubia acute test
was terminated at 48-h when survival was recorded.
Pimephales promelas chronic growth tests were initiated with <24-hour-old larval fish. Live brine
shrimp were fed to the fish three times daily. The tests were terminated on day 7, when the fish were
sacrificed, dried, and weighed for determination of growth as the chronic endpoint. In 2000, methods
were modified to address mortality due to bacterial pathogens which are commonly found in the study
site streams. Prior to 2000, test treatments consisted of four 250 ml plastic cups, each containing 200
ml of sample and 10 larval fish. Tests were revised after 2000 with 30 ml plastic cups, each containing
25 ml of test solution. Replicates were increased with the method modification from four to ten
replicates, with only two fish per test chamber (Geis et al. (2003)).
In the C. dubia chronic reproduction test, organisms were fed a combination of yeast/cerophyll/trout
food and the green algae Selenastrum capricornutum with each water renewal. Production of young
was recorded daily, and the tests were terminated after 80% of controls released their third brood (6 to
7 days). Test chambers consisted of 30 ml plastic cups, each containing 20 ml of test solution. Each
treatment consisted of 10 replicates with one organism per test chamber. The number of young
produced was used as the chronic endpoint.

Results
Figure S1. Relation of chloride to specific conductance using data from 17 Wisconsin streams.

7000
Cl < 230 mg/L
Cl > 230 mg/L
Cl = 0.363 X SC - 271
for Cl ≥ 230 mg/L

6000

Cl all

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000 12000
SC all

14000

16000

18000 20000

SUPPORTING DOCS FIGURE

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 5B

Audubon Society

Natural Resources Conservation Service

City of Milwaukee

Pier Wisconsin

Federation of Environmental Technologists

River Revitalization Foundation

Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors

Schlitz Audubon Nature Center

Greater Milwaukee Convention & Visitor Bureau

Sierra Club, Great Waters Group

Great Lakes Commission

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission

Growing Power
International Joint Commission
Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, Inc.
Menomonee Valley Partners
Metropolitan Builders Association
Milwaukee Community Service Corps
Milwaukee County Parks, Recreation and Culture
Development

University of Wisconsin Extension Basin Initiative
UW -Extension Basin Education Program
UW-Sea Grant Institute
Urban Ecology Center
Urban Open Space Foundation
U.S. EPA – Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Walleyes for Tomorrow

Milwaukee Riverkeeper

WE Energies

Milwaukee River Basin Partnership

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Milwaukee Urban Garden

Wisconsin Wastewater Operators Association

National Park Service

16th Street Community Health Center

Appendix 5B

SWWT MEMBERSHIP
Menomonee River WRP
.]

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 5C

Table 93
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED
RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT ELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Upgrade
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
According to
Recent Site
Study or
Facilities Plan
[High Priority]a

Construct
and Maintain
Intercommunity
Trunk Sewer
[High Priority]a

Construct
and Maintain
Local Sewer
System
[High Priority]a

Abate
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
[Medium
Priority]a

Evaluate
the Need
to Reduce
Clearwater
Infiltration
and Inflow
[High Priority]a

Eliminate
Discharges
from All Points
of Sewage
Flow Relief
[High Priority]a

Implement
CMOM
Program
[High Priority]a

Prepare
Facilities Plans
[Medium
Priority]a

Point Source
Management Agency

Refine and
Detail Sewer
Service Area
[Low Priority]a

Maintain and
Operate
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
[High Priority]a

Dodge Countyb .....................................................
Village of Lomira .................................................

-X

-X

---

---

-X

---

-X

---

-X

---

Fond du Lac Countyb ...........................................
Village of Campbellsport .....................................
Village of Eden....................................................

-X
--

-X
--

----

----

-X
X

----

-X
X

----

-X
X

----

Kenosha County
None ...................................................................

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Milwaukee County .................................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District .........
City of Cudahy ....................................................
City of Franklin ....................................................
City of Glendale ..................................................
City of Greenfield ................................................
City of Milwaukee ................................................
City of Oak Creek ...............................................
City of St. Francis ...............................................
City of South Milwaukee .....................................
City of Wauwatosa ..............................................
City of West Allis .................................................
Village of Bayside ...............................................
Village of Brown Deer .........................................
Village of Fox Point .............................................
Village of Greendale ...........................................
Village of Hales Corners .....................................
Village of River Hills ............................................
Village of Shorewood ..........................................
Village of West Milwaukee ..................................
Village of Whitefish Bay ......................................

-X
-------X
------------

-X
-------X
------------

-X
-------X
------------

-X
-X
------------------

--X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
--------------------

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
-------X
-X
-X
X
--X
----

--X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------------------

Ozaukee County ....................................................
City of Cedarburg ................................................
City of Mequon....................................................
City of Port Washington ......................................
Village of Fredonia ..............................................
Village of Grafton ................................................
Village of Newburg ..............................................
Village of Saukville ..............................................
Village of Thiensville ...........................................
Town of Fredonia–Waubeka
Area Sanitary District ......................................

----------

-X
-X
X
X
X
X
--

----X
-----

----------

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
--X
X
-X
X

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
---X
X
---

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

X

--

667

668

Table 93 (continued)

Point Source
Management Agency

Refine and
Detail Sewer
Service Area
[Low Priority]a

Maintain and
Operate
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
[High Priority]a

Upgrade
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
According to
Recent Site
Study or
Facilities Plan
[High Priority]a

Construct
and Maintain
Intercommunity
Trunk Sewer
[High Priority]a

Racine County .......................................................
City of Racine .....................................................
Village of Caledonia
Caledonia West Utility District.........................
Caledonia East Utility District..........................
Village of Mt. Pleasant ........................................
Mt. Pleasant Utility District No. 1.........................
Village of North Bay ............................................
Village of Sturtevant ............................................
Village of Union Grove ........................................
Village of Wind Point ...........................................
Town of Raymond ...............................................
Town of Yorkville Sewer Utility District No. 1 ......

------------X

-X
-------X
--X

--------------

Sheboygan Countyb .............................................
Village of Adell ....................................................
Onion River Sewerage Commission ...................
Village of Cascade ..............................................
Village of Random Lake ......................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen Sanitary District......
Town of Scott Sanitary District No. 1 ..................

-X
X
X
X
-X

-X
X
X
X
-X

Washington County ..............................................
City of West Bend ...............................................
Village of Germantown........................................
Village of Jackson ...............................................
Village of Kewaskum...........................................
Village of Newburg ..............................................
Town of Trenton–Wallace
Lake Sanitary Districtc ....................................
Town of West Bend–Silver
Lake Sanitary District ......................................

-------

Waukesha County .................................................
City of Brookfield .................................................
City of Muskego ..................................................
City of New Berlin ...............................................
Village of Butler...................................................
Village of Elm Grove ...........................................
Village of Menomonee Falls................................
Town of Brookfield ..............................................

Construct
and Maintain
Local Sewer
System
[High Priority]a

Abate
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
[Medium
Priority]a

Evaluate
the Need
to Reduce
Clearwater
Infiltration
and Inflow
[High Priority]a

Eliminate
Discharges
from All Points
of Sewage
Flow Relief
[High Priority]a

Implement
CMOM
Program
[High Priority]a

Prepare
Facilities Plans
[Medium
Priority]a

--------------

-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X

--------------

-X
-X
X
X
X
X
-X
--X

-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----

-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--X

-X
-X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X

--------

--------

-X
-X
X
X
X

--------

-X
X
X
X
-X

-X
------

-X
-X
X
-X

--------

-X
-X
X
X

----X

-X
-----

-X
X
X
X
X

-------

-X
X
X
X
X

-X
-X
X
X

-X
X
X
X
X

---X
---

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

--

--

X

--

---------

-X
-------

---------

--X
X
-----

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------

-X
X
X
X
X
X
--

-X
---X
X
--

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------

aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
cThe Wallace Lake Sanitary District also serves part of the Town of Barton.
Source: SEWRPC.

Table 94
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE RURAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Restricting
Livestock
Access to
Streams
[Medium Priority]a

Managing
Milking
Center
Wastewater
[Medium Priority]a

Expanded
Oversight of Private
Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems,
Including
Establishment of
Utility Districtsb
[Medium Priority]a

Rural Nonpoint Source
Management Agency

Implement
Practices to Reduce
Cropland Soil Erosion
to “T” or Below
[Medium Priority]a

Manure and
Nutrient
Management
[High Priority]a

Control
Barnyard
Runoff
[High Priority]a

Establish
Riparian
Buffers
[High Priority]a

Convert Marginal
Cropland and
Pasture to
Wetlands and
Prairies
[High Priority]a

Dodge Countyc.....................................................
Dodge County Drainage Board ..........................
Town of Lomira ..................................................

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
X
--

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
-X

Fond du Lac Countyc ..........................................
Fond du Lac County Drainage Board ................
Town of Ashford .................................................
Town of Auburn .................................................
Town of Byron ....................................................
Town of Eden.....................................................
Town of Osceola ................................................

X
-------

X
-------

X
-------

X
X
------

X
-------

X
-------

X
-------

X
-X
X
X
X
X

Kenosha County...................................................
Kenosha County Drainage Boardd ....................
Town of Paris .....................................................

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
X
--

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
-X

Milwaukee County ................................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ........
City of Franklin ...................................................

X
---

----

----

X
X
--

X
X
--

----

----

--X

Ozaukee County ...................................................
Ozaukee County Drainage Board ......................
Town of Cedarburg ............................................
Town of Fredonia ...............................................
Town of Fredonia–Waubeka
Area Sanitary District .....................................
Town of Grafton .................................................
Town of Port Washington...................................
Town of Saukville ...............................................

X
----

X
----

X
----

X
X
---

X
----

X
----

X
----

X
-X
X

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

X
X
X
X

Racine County ......................................................
Racine County Drainage Board .........................
Town of Dover ...................................................
Town of Raymond ..............................................
Town of Yorkville ...............................................
Town of Yorkville Sewer Utility District No. 1 .....

X
------

X
------

X
------

X
X
-----

X
------

X
------

X
------

X
-X
X
X
X

Sheboygan Countyc ............................................
Sheboygan County Drainage Board ..................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen Sanitary District.....
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Scott Sanitary District No. 1 .................
Town of Sherman ..............................................

X
---------

X
---------

X
---------

X
X
X
--X
----

X
---------

X
---------

X
---------

X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X

669

670

Table 94 (continued)

Rural Nonpoint Source
Management Agency

Implement
Practices to Reduce
Cropland Soil Erosion
to “T” or Below
[Medium Priority]a

Manure and
Nutrient
Management
[High Priority]a

Control
Barnyard
Runoff
[High Priority]a

Establish
Riparian
Buffers
[High Priority]a

Convert Marginal
Cropland and
Pasture to
Wetlands and
Prairies
[High Priority]a

Restricting
Livestock
Access to
Streams
[Medium Priority]a

Managing
Milking
Center
Wastewater
[Medium Priority]a

Expanded
Oversight of Private
Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems,
Including
Establishment of
Utility Districtsb
[Medium Priority]a

Washington County .............................................
Washington County Drainage Board .................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Towns of Barton and Trenton–Wallace
Lake Sanitary District .....................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
X
--

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
-X

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Waukesha County ................................................
Waukesha County Drainage Board ...................
Town of Lisbon ..................................................

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
X
--

X
---

X
---

X
---

X
-X

State of Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection ..............................
Department of Commerce..................................
Department of Natural Resources .....................

X
-X

X
-X

X
-X

X
-X

--X

X
-X

X
---

-X
--

Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture ..........................
Farm Services Agency .......................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service ..........

--X

X
---

X
---

-X
X

X
---

----

----

----

Land Trustse
Kenosha/Racine Land Trust ..............................
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy ..................
Ozaukee-Washington Land Trust ......................
Waukesha County Land Conservancy ...............

-----

-----

-----

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

-----

-----

-----

aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bIn some counties, existing county programs may be providing the additional oversight of POWTS recommended for town utility districts to perform. In these instances, it may not be necessary to form town utility districts for the sole purpose of providing
supplemental oversight of POWTS.
cFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
dAs of the date of publication of this report, Kenosha County did not have an active drainage board.
eWhile land trusts are not governmental agencies, they could play a significant role in implementing certain recommendations.
Source: SEWRPC.

Table 95
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE URBAN NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS

Urban Nonpoint Source
Management Agency
Dodge Countyb ....................................................
Village of Lomira ................................................
Town of Lomira ..................................................
Fond du Lac Countyb ..........................................
Village of Campbellsport ....................................
Village of Eden...................................................
Town of Ashford .................................................
Town of Auburn .................................................
Town of Auburn–Forest Lake
Improvement Association ..............................
Town of Byron ....................................................
Town of Eden.....................................................
Town of Empire ..................................................
Town of Forest ...................................................
Town of Osceola ................................................
Town of Osceola–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of Osceola–Kettle Moraine
Lake Association ...........................................
Town of Osceola–Long
Lake Fishing Club, Inc. ..................................

Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
[High Priority]a

Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a

Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a

Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a

Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a

Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a

Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a

Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a

Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a

X
X
X

X
X
--

----

X
X
--

X
---

-X
--

----

X
X
--

----

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
---

------

X
X
X
---

X
---X

-X
X
---

X
X
X
---

X
X
X
---

------

-X
X
X
X
X

-------

-------

-------

X
----X

-------

X
------

-------

-------

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

Kenosha County...................................................
Town of Paris .....................................................

X
X

---

---

X
--

X
--

---

X
--

---

---

Milwaukee County ................................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ........
City of Cudahy ...................................................
City of Franklin ...................................................
City of Glendale .................................................
City of Greenfield ...............................................
City of Milwaukee ...............................................
City of Oak Creek ..............................................
City of St. Francis ..............................................
City of South Milwaukee ....................................
City of Wauwatosa .............................................
City of West Allis ................................................
Village of Bayside ..............................................
Village of Brown Deer ........................................
Village of Fox Point ............................................
Village of Greendale ..........................................
Village of Hales Corners ....................................
Village of River Hills ...........................................
Village of Shorewood .........................................
Village of West Milwaukee .................................
Village of Whitefish Bay .....................................

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
--------------------

X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
--------------------

671

672

Table 95 (continued)

Urban Nonpoint Source
Management Agency

Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]

Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a

Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a

Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

X
X
X
X
-X

-----

-----

Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a

Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a

Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a

Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a

Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a

X
X
-X

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

------------

X
X
-X

-----

X
-X
--

-----

-----

Ozaukee County ...................................................
City of Cedarburg ...............................................
City of Mequon...................................................
City of Port Washington .....................................
Village of Fredonia .............................................
Village of Grafton ...............................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Village of Saukville .............................................
Village of Thiensville ..........................................
Town of Cedarburg ............................................
Town of Fredonia ...............................................
Town of Fredonia–Spring Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of Grafton .................................................
Town of Port Washington...................................
Town of Saukville ...............................................
Town of Saukville–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................

-X
X
X

-----

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

Racine County ......................................................
City of Racine ....................................................
Village of Caledonia ...........................................
Village of Mt. Pleasant .......................................
Village of North Bay ...........................................
Village of Sturtevant ...........................................
Village of Union Grove .......................................
Village of Wind Point ..........................................
Town of Dover ...................................................
Town of Norway .................................................
Town of Raymond ..............................................
Town of Yorkville ...............................................

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----

-------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----

X
X
X
X
-X

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----

-X
-----------

Sheboygan Countyb ............................................
Village of Adell ...................................................
Village of Cascade .............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Village of Random Lake–Random
Lake Association, Inc.....................................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Holland .................................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen
Sanitary District No. 1 ....................................
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Sherman ..............................................

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

-----

X
X
X
X

X

X

-X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

-----

-X
X
X

-----

-----

-----

X
--X

-----

X
----

-----

-----

-X
X
X

-----

-----

-----

X
----

-----

X
----

-----

-----

X
-----

Table 95 (continued)

Urban Nonpoint Source
Management Agency
Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West Bend–Barton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Village of Germantown.......................................
Village of Jackson ..............................................
Village of Kewaskum..........................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Town of Addison ................................................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Town of Barton–Smith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Towns of Barton and Trenton–Wallace
Lake Sanitary District .....................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Farmington–Lake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Town of Farmington–Green Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................
Town of West Bend–Big Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Little Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Silver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend –Lucas Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Waukesha County ................................................
City of Brookfield ................................................
City of Muskego .................................................
City of New Berlin ..............................................
Village of Butler..................................................
Village of Elm Grove ..........................................
Village of Menomonee Falls...............................
Town of Brookfield .............................................
Town of Lisbon ..................................................

Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]

Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a

Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a

Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a

Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a

Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a

Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a

Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a

Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a

X
X

X
X

---

X
X

X
X

-X

X
X

X
X

---

-X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
X
X
X
---

--------

-X
X
X
X
---

X
X
----X

-X
X
X
X
---

X
X
X
X
X
-X

-X
X
X
X
---

--------

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

-X

---

---

---

X
X

---

X
X

---

---

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

----------

----------

X
-------X

----------

X
-------X

----------

----------

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

X

--

--

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---

----------

673

674

Table 95 (continued)

Urban Nonpoint Source
Management Agency

Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]

Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a

Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a

Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a

Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a

Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a

Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a

Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a

Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a

State of Wisconsin
Department of Commerce..................................
Department of Natural Resources .....................
Department of Transportation ............................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................

X
X
X
--

-----

-X
---

-X
X
--

-X
-X

-----

---X

---X

-X
---

Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
U.S. Department of Transportation ....................

----

----

X
---

--X

----

----

----

----

X
X
--

Nongovernmental Organizations
Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, Inc. .............
Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers ...........................

---

---

---

---

---

---

X
X

---

---

aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
cThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
Source: SEWRPC.

Table 96
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE INSTREAM WATER QUALITY MEASURES SUBELEMENT OF THE RECOMMENDED
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa

Management Agency

Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b

Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b

Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b

Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b

Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b

Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b

Navigational
Dredging

Dredged
Material
Disposal

Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives

Dodge County ..............................................
Village of Lomira ................................................
Town of Lomira ..................................................

----

----

----

X
X
X

----

X
X
X

----

----

----

Fond du Lac County ......................................
Village of Campbellsport ....................................
Village of Eden...................................................
Town of Ashford .................................................
Town of Auburn .................................................
Town of Byron ....................................................
Town of Eden.....................................................
Town of Empire ..................................................
Town of Forest ...................................................
Town of Osceola ................................................

-----------

-----------

-----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-----------

-----------

-----------

Kenosha County ...........................................
Town of Paris .....................................................

---

---

---

X
X

---

X
X

---

---

---

Milwaukee County .........................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ........
City of Cudahy ...................................................
City of Franklin ...................................................
City of Glendale .................................................
City of Greenfield ...............................................
City of Milwaukee ...............................................
Port of Milwaukee ..............................................
City of Oak Creek ..............................................
City of St. Francis ..............................................
City of South Milwaukee ....................................
City of Wauwatosa .............................................
City of West Allis ................................................
Village of Bayside ..............................................
Village of Brown Deer ........................................
Village of Fox Point ............................................
Village of Greendale ..........................................
Village of Hales Corners ....................................
Village of River Hills ...........................................
Village of Shorewood .........................................
Village of West Milwaukee .................................
Village of Whitefish Bay .....................................

X
X
---------------------

-X
---------------------

-----------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-----------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------X
---------------

-------X
---------------

-----------------------

Ozaukee County ...........................................
City of Cedarburg ...............................................
City of Mequon...................................................
City of Port Washington .....................................
Village of Fredonia .............................................
Village of Grafton ...............................................

-------

-------

-------

X
X
X
X
X
X

-------

X
X
X
X
X
X

-------

-------

-------

675

676

Table 96 (continued)

Management Agency

Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b

Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b

Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b

Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b

Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b

Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b

Navigational
Dredging

Dredged
Material
Disposal

Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives

Ozaukee County (continued)
Village of Newburg .............................................
Village of Saukville .............................................
Village of Thiensville ..........................................
Town of Cedarburg ............................................
Town of Fredonia ...............................................
Town of Grafton .................................................
Town of Port Washington...................................
Town of Saukville ...............................................

---------

---------

---------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------

---------

---------

Racine County ..............................................
City of Racine ....................................................
Village of Caledonia ...........................................
Village of Mt. Pleasant .......................................
Village of North Bay ...........................................
Village of Sturtevant ...........................................
Village of Union Grove .......................................
Village of Wind Point ..........................................
Town of Dover ...................................................
Town of Norway .................................................
Town of Raymond ..............................................
Town of Yorkville ...............................................

-------------

-------------

-------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------------

-------------

-------------

Sheboygan County........................................
Village of Adell ...................................................
Village of Cascade .............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Holland .................................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Sherman ..............................................

-----------

-----------

-----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-----------

-----------

-----------

Washington County.......................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
Village of Germantown.......................................
Village of Jackson ..............................................
Village of Kewaskum..........................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Town of Addison ................................................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................

------------------

------------------

------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

------------------

------------------

------------------

Table 96 (continued)

Management Agency

Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b

Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b

Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b

Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b

Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b

Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b

Navigational
Dredging

Dredged
Material
Disposal

Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives

Waukesha County .........................................
City of Brookfield ................................................
City of Muskego .................................................
City of New Berlin ..............................................
Village of Butler..................................................
Village of Elm Grove ..........................................
Village of Menomonee Falls...............................
Town of Brookfield .............................................
Town of Lisbon ..................................................

----------

----------

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

----------

----------

State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources .....................
Department of Transportation ............................

---

---

X
--

X
X

X
--

X
X

---

---

X
--

Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
U.S. Department of Transportation ....................
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...........................

-----

-----

---X

--X
X

-X
---

X

---X

---X

-----

X
X

aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
Source: SEWRPC.

677

678

Table 97
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE INLAND LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa

Inland Lake
Management Agency

Establish
a Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation
District or a Lake
Association
[High Priority]b

Preparation
or Updating
of Lake
Management
Plans
[High Priority]b

Consider Preparation
of Detailed Plans
for Milwaukee
County Lagoons
and Implement
Recommendations
in Milwaukee
County Lagoon
Management Plan
[High Priority]b

Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Fond du Lac County ............................................
Town of Auburn .................................................
Town of Auburn–Forest Lake
Improvement Association ..............................
Town of Osceola ................................................
Town of Osceola–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of Osceola–Kettle Moraine
Lake Association ...........................................
Town of Osceola–Long Lake
Fishing Club, Inc. ...........................................

---

---

---

---

---

X
--

---

X
X

---

X
--

---

---

---

X
X

X
--

-X

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Milwaukee County ................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

X
--

---

---

---

---

---

Ozaukee County ...................................................
Town of Fredonia ...............................................
Town of Fredonia–Spring Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of Saukville ...............................................
Town of Saukville–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................

---

---

---

---

---

-X

---

X
X

X
--

X
--

---

---

---

X
X

X
--

-X

Implement
Washington County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b

Implement
Waukesha County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b

Abate Nonpoint
Source Pollution
According to Plan
Recommendations
[High Priority]b

Implement a
Community-Based
Informational Program
[High Priority]b

Review and
Evaluate Proposed
Land Use Changes
for Lake-Related
Impacts
[High Priority]b

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

Racine County ......................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Sheboygan County ..............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Village of Random Lake–Random
Lake Association, Inc.....................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen
Sanitary District No. 1 ....................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

X
X

---

X
--

---

---

---

X
--

X
--

-X

--

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West Bend–Barton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Town of Barton ..................................................

---

---

---

X

-X

---

X
X

X
--

X
--

---

---

X
X

X
--

-X

---

Table 97 (continued)

Inland Lake
Management Agency
Washington County (continued)
Town of Barton–Smith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of Barton–Wallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Farmington–Lake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Town of Farmington–Green Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West Bend ...........................................
Town of West Bend–Big Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Little Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Silver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Lucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD) or
Lake Associationc..........................................

Establish
a Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation
District or a Lake
Association
[High Priority]b

Preparation
or Updating
of Lake
Management
Plans
[High Priority]b

Consider Preparation
of Detailed Plans
for Milwaukee
County Lagoons
and Implement
Recommendations
in Milwaukee
County Lagoon
Management Plan
[High Priority]b

Implement
Washington County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b

Implement
Waukesha County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b

Abate Nonpoint
Source Pollution
According to Plan
Recommendations
[High Priority]b

Implement a
Community-Based
Informational Program
[High Priority]b

Review and
Evaluate Proposed
Land Use Changes
for Lake-Related
Impacts
[High Priority]b

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

---

---

---

X
X

X

--

X
--

-X

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

X
--

---

---

---

X
X

X
--

-X

--

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

Waukesha County ................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

X
--

---

---

---

State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resourcesd ...................
University of Wisconsin–Extension ....................

-X

X
--

---

X
--

X
--

X
--

X
X

----

aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
cThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
dIt is recommended that the WDNR develop lake management plans for Auburn, Crooked, and Mauthe Lakes, which are located in the Northern Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest.
Source: SEWRPC.

679

680

Table 98
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE AUXILIARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa

Management Agency

Maintain and
Expand Public
Health-Related
Monitoring at
Beaches
[High Priority]b

Identify Local
Sources of
Contamination
by Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
at Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsc
[High Priority]b

Implement
Remedies at
Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsd
[High Priority]b

Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

Fond du Lac County ............................................
Town of Auburn–Forest Lake
Improvement Association ..............................
Town of Osceola–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Osceola–Kettle Moraine
Lake Association ...........................................
Town of Osceola–Long Lake
Fishing Club, Inc. ...........................................

X

Waterfowl
Control Where
a Nuisance or
Health Hazard
[High Priority]b

Implement
and Refine
the Lakewide
Management
Plan for Lake
Michigan
[Medium
Priority]b

---

---

X

--

--

--

--

Household
Hazardous
Waste Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b

Pharmaceutical
and Personal
Care Product
Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b

Information
and Education
Programs
Regarding Exotic
Invasive Species
[Medium
Priority]b

Develop a Policy
Regarding Water
Temperatures
and Thermal
Discharges into
Waterbodies
[Medium
Priority]b

Support
and Continue
Ongoing
Water Quality
Monitoring
Programs
[High Priority]b

---

X
--

X
--

---

---

---

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

X
--

X
--

---

---

---

Milwaukee County ................................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ........
City of Cudahy ...................................................
City of Milwaukee ...............................................
City of South Milwaukee ....................................
Village of Fox Point ............................................
North Shore Health Departmentf ...................
Village of Shorewood .........................................
Village of Whitefish Bay .....................................
Shorewood-Whitefish Bay
Health Department ....................................

--X
X
X
-X
---

--X
X
X
-X
---

X
--X
X
X
--X

X
------X
X

----------

-X
--------

-X
--------

----------

----------

X
X
--------

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Ozaukee County ...................................................
Town of Fredonia–Spring Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Saukville–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................

X

X

X

X

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

Racine County ......................................................
City of Racine ....................................................
Village of North Bay ...........................................
Village of Wind Point ..........................................

-X
X
X

-X
X
X

-X
X
X

-X
X
X

-----

X
----

X
----

-----

-----

-X
---

Sheboygan County ..............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Village of Random Lake–Random
Lake Association, Inc.....................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen Sanitary
District No. 1 ..................................................

-X

-X

---

---

---

X
--

X
--

---

---

---

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

Table 98 (continued)

Maintain and
Expand Public
Health-Related
Monitoring at
Beaches
[High Priority]b

Identify Local
Sources of
Contamination
by Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
at Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsc
[High Priority]b

Implement
Remedies at
Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsd
[High Priority]b

X
X

X
X

--

Waterfowl
Control Where
a Nuisance or
Health Hazard
[High Priority]b

Implement
and Refine
the Lakewide
Management
Plan for Lake
Michigan
[Medium
Priority]b

---

---

--

X

--

--

X

Household
Hazardous
Waste Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b

Pharmaceutical
and Personal
Care Product
Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b

Information
and Education
Programs
Regarding Exotic
Invasive Species
[Medium
Priority]b

Develop a Policy
Regarding Water
Temperatures
and Thermal
Discharges into
Waterbodies
[Medium
Priority]b

Support
and Continue
Ongoing
Water Quality
Monitoring
Programs
[High Priority]b

---

X
--

X
--

---

---

---

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

Waukesha County ................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

X
--

---

---

X
--

Regional Agency ..................................................
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission ....................................

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Coastal
Zone Management Program ..........................
Department of Natural Resources ....................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program ......

-X
---

-X
---

-X
---

-----

X
X
-X

-----

-----

-X
X
X

-X
---

-X
---

--

--

--

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

X
--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Management Agency
Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West Bend–Barton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of Barton–Smith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Barton–Wallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of Farmington–Lake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of Farmington–Green Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West Bend–Big Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Little Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Silver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Lucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................

Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration ................................................
Nongovernmental Organizations ........................
Riveredge Nature Center ...................................
Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers ...........................

681

682

Table 98 (continued)

Management Agency

Expand USGS
Stream Gage
Network to Include
the Nine ShortTerm Sites
Established for
the Regional
Water Quality
Management
Plan Update
[High Priority]b

Extend Operation
of USGS Gages
on Wilson Park
Creek (3 Gages),
Holmes Avenue
Creek (1 Gage),
Mitchell Field
Drainage Ditch
(1 Gage), and the
Little Menomonee
River (1 Gage)
[High Priority]b

Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

Fond du Lac County ............................................
Town of Auburn–Forest Lake
Improvement Association ..............................
Town of Osceola–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Osceola–Kettle Moraine
Lake Association ...........................................
Town of Osceola–Long Lake
Fishing Club, Inc. ...........................................

Establish and
Maintain LongTerm Fisheries,
Macroinvertebrate,
and Habitat
Monitoring Stations
in Streams
[Medium Priority]b

Continue
Consolidation of
Water Quality
Monitoring Data
and Adopt
Common Quality
Assurance and
Control Procedures
Along with
Standardized
Sampling Protocols
[High Priority]b

Conduct
Aquatic Plant
Habitat and
Fish Survey
Assessments in
Inland Lakes
[Medium Priority]b

---

---

Establish LongTerm Trend Inland
Lake Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
[Medium Priority]b

Continue to
Monitor and
Document the
Occurrence of
Exotic Invasive
Species
[Medium Priority]b

Maintain the
HSPF, FFS,
Streamlined
MOUSE, and
MACRO Computer
Models Developed
Under the MMSD
2020 Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b

Maintain the
LSPC, ECOMSED,
and RCA Computer
Models Developed
Under the
RWQMPU and
the MMSD 2020
Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b

---

---

---

---

---

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Milwaukee County ................................................
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ........
City of Cudahy ...................................................
City of Milwaukee ...............................................
City of South Milwaukee ....................................
Village of Fox Point ............................................
North Shore Health Departmentf ...................
Village of Shorewood .........................................
Village of Whitefish Bay .....................................
Shorewood-Whitefish Bay
Health Department ....................................

----------

X
X
--------

-X
--------

-X
--------

----------

----------

----------

-X
--------

----------

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Ozaukee County ...................................................
Town of Fredonia–Spring Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Saukville–Mud Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

Racine County ......................................................
City of Racine ....................................................
Village of North Bay ...........................................
Village of Wind Point ..........................................

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Sheboygan County ..............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Village of Random Lake–Random
Lake Association, Inc.....................................
Town of Lyndon–Lake Ellen Sanitary
District No. 1 ..................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

Table 98 (continued)

Management Agency
Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West Bend–Barton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of Barton–Smith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of Barton–Wallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of Farmington–Lake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of Farmington–Green Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West Bend–Big Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Little Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Silver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West Bend–Lucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................

Expand USGS
Stream Gage
Network to Include
the Nine ShortTerm Sites
Established for
the Regional
Water Quality
Management
Plan Update
[High Priority]b

Extend Operation
of USGS Gages
on Wilson Park
Creek (3 Gages),
Holmes Avenue
Creek (1 Gage),
Mitchell Field
Drainage Ditch
(1 Gage), and the
Little Menomonee
River (1 Gage)
[High Priority]b

---

Establish and
Maintain LongTerm Fisheries,
Macroinvertebrate,
and Habitat
Monitoring Stations
in Streams
[Medium Priority]b

Continue
Consolidation of
Water Quality
Monitoring Data
and Adopt
Common Quality
Assurance and
Control Procedures
Along with
Standardized
Sampling Protocols
[High Priority]b

Conduct
Aquatic Plant
Habitat and
Fish Survey
Assessments in
Inland Lakes
[Medium Priority]b

---

---

---

--

--

--

--

--

--

Establish LongTerm Trend Inland
Lake Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
[Medium Priority]b

Continue to
Monitor and
Document the
Occurrence of
Exotic Invasive
Species
[Medium Priority]b

Maintain the
HSPF, FFS,
Streamlined
MOUSE, and
MACRO Computer
Models Developed
Under the MMSD
2020 Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b

Maintain the
LSPC, ECOMSED,
and RCA Computer
Models Developed
Under the
RWQMPU and
the MMSD 2020
Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b

---

---

---

---

---

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

X

--

--

--

Waukesha County ................................................
None ..................................................................

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Regional Agency ..................................................
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission ....................................

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Coastal
Zone Management Program ..........................
Department of Natural Resources ....................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program ......

-----

-X
---

-X
---

-X
X
--

-X
---

-X
---

-X
---

-----

-----

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

X
--

X
--

X
--

X
X

---

---

---

---

---

Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration ................................................
Nongovernmental Organizations ........................
Riveredge Nature Center ...................................
Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers ...........................

--

--

--

--

--

--

X

--

--

----

----

----

-X
X

----

----

----

----

----

683

684

Table 98 Footnotes

aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
cNeed for sanitary survey depends on results of public health monitoring.
dNeed for remedies depends on results of public health monitoring and sanitary surveys.
eThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
fThe North Shore Health Department includes the City of Glendale and the Villages of Brown Deer, Fox Point, and River Hills.
Source: SEWRPC.

Table 99
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa

Groundwater
Management Agency

Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
[Low Priority]b

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b

Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
[Low Priority]b

Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b

Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b

Dodge County ..............................................
Village of Lomira ................................................

X
--

X
X

X
X

X
--

X
X

X
X

Fond du Lac County ......................................
Village of Campbellsport ....................................
Village of Eden...................................................
Town of Ashford .................................................
Town of Auburn .................................................
Town of Byron ....................................................
Town of Eden.....................................................
Town of Empire ..................................................
Town of Forest ...................................................
Town of Osceola ................................................

X
----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Kenosha County ...........................................
Town of Paris .....................................................

---

X
X

X
X

---

X
X

X
X

Milwaukee County .........................................
City of Cudahy ...................................................
City of Franklin ...................................................
City of Glendale .................................................
City of Greenfield ...............................................
City of Milwaukee ...............................................
City of Oak Creek ..............................................
City of St. Francis ..............................................
City of South Milwaukee ....................................
City of Wauwatosa .............................................
City of West Allis ................................................
Village of Bayside ..............................................
Village of Brown Deer ........................................
Village of Fox Point ............................................
Village of Greendale ..........................................
Village of Hales Corners ....................................
Village of River Hills ...........................................
Village of Shorewood .........................................
Village of West Milwaukee .................................
Village of Whitefish Bay .....................................

---------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

---------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Ozaukee County ...........................................
City of Cedarburg ...............................................
City of Mequon...................................................
City of Port Washington .....................................
Village of Fredonia .............................................
Village of Grafton ...............................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Village of Saukville .............................................
Village of Thiensville ..........................................

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

685

686

Table 99 (continued)

Groundwater
Management Agency

Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b

Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]

Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b

Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b

Ozaukee County (continued)
Town of Cedarburg ............................................
Town of Fredonia ...............................................
Town of Grafton .................................................
Town of Port Washington...................................
Town of Saukville ...............................................

------

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

------

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Racine County ..............................................
City of Racine ....................................................
Village of Caledonia ...........................................
Village of Mt. Pleasant .......................................
Village of North Bay ...........................................
Village of Sturtevant ...........................................
Village of Union Grove .......................................
Village of Wind Point ..........................................
Town of Dover ...................................................
Town of Norway .................................................
Town of Raymond ..............................................
Town of Yorkville ...............................................

-------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

-------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Sheboygan County........................................
Village of Adell ...................................................
Village of Cascade .............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Holland .................................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Sherman ..............................................

X
----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Washington County.......................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
Village of Germantown.......................................
Village of Jackson ..............................................
Village of Kewaskum..........................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Town of Addison ................................................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................

------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

------------------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Table 99 (continued)

Groundwater
Management Agency

Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b

Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b

Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]

Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b

Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b

Waukesha County .........................................
City of Brookfield ................................................
City of Muskego .................................................
City of New Berlin ..............................................
Village of Butler..................................................
Village of Elm Grove ..........................................
Village of Menomonee Falls...............................
Town of Brookfield .............................................
Town of Lisbon ..................................................

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

----------

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
Source: SEWRPC.

687

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

Introduction

Chapters 1 through 5 of this watershed restoration plan (WRP) have described the goals for the
Menomonee River watershed, identified and quantified the pollutant loads from all of the
sources, and listed a suite of existing and recommended management measures. The next step is
to determine the potential benefit that would result from implementing each of the potential
management measures. These potential benefits are needed to: (a) determine if the proposed
management measures will be sufficient to achieve the desired watershed goals, and (b) to help
prioritize the most effective measures.
One useful way to determine the potential benefits of the management measures is to quantify
the expected load reductions. Pollutant load reductions directly translate into improved water
quality and are an easy way to convey information to the general public. However, it is difficult
to develop quantifiable load reductions for all of the issues of concern within the Menomonee
River watershed. For example, some goals (e.g., improved aesthetics) are only indirectly related
to pollutant loads and trying to link them to one or even a few specific pollutants and source
loads is difficult or inappropriate. Therefore, this chapter reports not only the expected load
reductions for those management measures for which information exists, but also includes a
description of measures for which load reductions cannot be quantified.
Also included is the priority rating for the various actions based upon Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission’s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
(RWQMPU). These priorities were offered as a starting point for further discussion with the
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) and Watershed Action Team (WAT).
Modifications to the priority ratings and additional actions developed by the SWWT committees
are presented in Chapter 7. The recommended implementation schedule is presented in Chapter
8.
6.2
Expected Load Reductions from the Regional Water Quality Management Plan
Update
To support the development of the Menomonee River WRP, the models that were developed to
support the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP)
and the RWQMPU were updated to run through December 31, 2007. The purpose of this update
was to account for the known changes in the watershed that occurred during earlier model
development. The updated modeling results for the Menomonee River watershed model were
found to accurately simulate observed flows and water quality conditions and were used to
support development of the WRP.
Expected load reductions for the Menomonee River watershed were estimated from the modeling
that was completed to support the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Menomonee River WRP. In
some ways, these load reductions represent an upper estimate of the load reductions that could be
achieved in the watershed because they are based on full implementation of a variety of
management measures that were deemed to be possible during development of the RWQMPU.
However, it should be noted that several management measures included in this WRP (e.g., the

6-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

statewide ban on phosphorus in fertilizers) were not included in the model runs. Furthermore,
better information continues to be gathered about the significance of some of the key pollutant
sources in the watershed (e.g., illicit sewer connections and other unknown sources of fecal
coliform). It is therefore possible that load reductions greater than those anticipated for the
RWQMPU could eventually be realized.
The modeling results for the major components of the RWQMPU are summarized in Table 6-1,
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and reveal several significant outcomes:
Total phosphorus (TP) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loads decrease from
Baseline Year 2000 to the Planned 2020 Future with Planned Growth condition whereas
total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliform loads slightly increase.
Implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management
(non-Agriculture [Ag] only), as called for under the RWQMPU, results in an 11%
decrease in TP loads, a 24% decrease in TSS loads, a 14% decrease in BOD loads, and
an 18% decrease in fecal coliform loads, relative to the Planned 2020 Future with
Planned Growth condition.
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 Planned 2020 Future with NR 151 (non-Ag only) condition.
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 Planned 2020 Future with Point Source Plan condition.

6-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 6-1
PROJECTED EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS PLANNED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

TP

TSS

BOD

(LBS/YR)

(TONS/YR)

(LB/YR)

Fecal
Coliform
(COUNTS/YR)

A. Baseline Year 2000

53,129

8,982

1,352,685

16.87E+15

B. Planned 2020 Future with Planned
Growth

42,576

9,267

1,345,474

17.29E+15

C. Planned 2020 Future with NR 151
(non-Ag only)

37,968

7,021

1,158,922

14.19E+15

D. Planned 2020 Future Load Reductions
with NR 151 (non-Ag only) (B-C)

-4,608

-2,246

-186,522

-3.10E+15

E. Planned 2020 Future Percent
Reduction with NR 151 (non-Ag only)
(B vs. C)

-11%

-24%

-14%

-18%

F. Planned 2020 Future with Point Source
Plan (5-Year LOP)

37,490

7,003

1,147,951

13.71E+15

G. Planned 2020 Future Load Reductions
with the Point Source Plan (C-F)

-478

-18

-10,971

-0.48E+15

H. Additional Percent Reduction from the
Point Source Plan (C vs. F)

-1%

-0.3%

-1%

-3%

I. RWQMPU Recommended Plan

35,898

6,868

1,128,219

9.80E+15

J. RWQMPU Additional Planned
Reductions (F-I)

-1,592

-135

-19,732

-3.91E+15

-4%

-2%

-2%

-29%

-17,231

-2,114

-224,466

-7.07E+15

-32%

-24%

-17%

-42%

K. RWQMPU Recommended Plan
Additional Percent Reduction (F vs. I)
L. RWQMPU Planned 2020 Future
Reductions vs. Baseline Year 2000 (A-I)
M. RWQMPU Planned 2020 Future
Percent Reductions vs. Baseline Year
2000 (A-I)

Notes:
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand,
LOP = Level of protection
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151, Runoff Management (non-Ag only)
TP = Total phosphorus
TSS = Total suspended solids
Negative values and percentages indicate load reductions between planned actions being compared.

6-3

Menomonee River

55

1,400

50
45

1,200

40

1,000

BOD (1,000 lbs/yr)

TP (1,000 lbs/yr)

Watershed Restoration Plan

35
30
25
20
15

800
600
400

10
5

200

0

0

1.8E+16

10

Fecal coliform (counts/yr)

TSS (thousand tons/yr)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

1.5E+16
1.2E+16
9.0E+15
6.0E+15
3.0E+15
0.0E+00

Baseline
Year 2020 with planned growth – no management measures
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) implementation only
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) and Point Source Plan (5Year LOP)
RWQMPU Recommended Plan – includes NR 151 (non-Ag only),
Point Source Plan and other recommendations
FIGURE 6-1: PROJECTED ANNUAL LOADS BY PARAMETER FOR THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

6-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TP Annual Load

BOD Annual Load

0%

0%

-15%

-15%

-30%

-30%

-45%

-45%

TSS Annual Load

Fecal Coliform Annual Load
0%

0%

-15%

-15%

-30%

-30%

-45%

-45%

Year 2020 with planned growth – no management measures
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) implementation only
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) and Point Source Plan (5Year LOP)
RWQMPU Recommended Plan – includes NR 151 (non-Ag only),
Point Source Plan and other recommendations
FIGURE 6-2: 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
Notes:
Percent is calculated as the difference between the component and baseline conditions divided by baseline conditions.
The absence of a bar representing Year 2020 with planned growth – no management measures indicates that no material
reductions are projected for that parameter, relative to the baseline.

6-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The remainder of this section presents the individual load reductions and other anticipated
benefits for each of the specific management measures presented in Chapter 5. A summary of
the load reductions and other benefits of actions included in this WRP is shown in Table 6-2.
TABLE 6-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Management
Measure

TP

TSS

BOD

Fecal
Coliform

Chlorides

Flow/Habitat

No impact

No impact

No impact

Only minor
impacts expected

Phosphorus
1
fertilizer ban

20%
No impact
reduction in
loads from
residential
grass

MMSD Chapter 13
revisions

Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor
10 to 20%
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
reduction in peak
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
runoff rate from
disturbed areas
(Note: Those
reductions do not
translate into instream reductions
of 10 to 20%.)

Programs to detect
and eliminate illicit
discharges

Only minor Only minor Only minor Potential Only minor
Only minor
impacts
impacts
impacts
19 - 59%
impacts
impacts expected
expected
expected
expected reduction in expected
watershed
2
loads

Expand riparian
areas

8%
8%
Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
reduction in reduction in impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
watershed watershed expected
expected
expected
loads
loads

Manage pet litter

Only minor Only minor Only minor
50%
Only minor
Only minor
impacts
impacts
impacts reduction in impacts
impacts expected
expected
expected
expected loads from expected
residential
grass

Concrete channel
renovation and
rehabilitation

Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected

6-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 6-2, continued
EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Management
Measure

TP

TSS

BOD

Fecal
Coliform

Chlorides

Flow/Habitat

Limit number of
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
culverts, bridges,
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
drop structures, and expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
channelized stream
segments
Remove abandoned Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
bridges and culverts impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
Protect remaining
natural stream
channels

Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected

Restore, enhance,
and rehabilitate
stream channels

Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected

Road salt reduction

Only minor
impacts
expected

Rain barrels/rain
gardens program
(30% of homes)

1.5%
1%
Only minor
10%
Only minor
reduction in reduction in impacts reduction in impacts
watershed watershed expected watershed expected
loads
loads
loads

No impact

No impact

No impact Potential for
Only minor
20%
impacts expected
reduction
2% decrease in
flashiness

Notes:
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
TP = Total phosphorus
TSS = Total suspended solids
The RWQMPU recommended a reduction in the use of fertilizers – this new Phosphorus Ban exceeds the RWQMPU
recommendation.
The RWQMPU assumed that 33% of illicit discharges would be eliminated, which corresponds to a 19% reduction in watershed
loads. Elimination of more than 33% of illicit discharges would result in load reductions that exceed the reductions noted in the
RWQMPU. If 100% of the discharges were eliminated, the watershed load of fecal coliforms would be reduced by 59%.

6.2.1 Committed Programs
Committed programs include efforts that are already well underway and will continue or that can
be expected to be implemented because they are regulatory requirements.
Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management (non-Ag only)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The expected load reductions from the urban requirements of NR 151 were quantified during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and this WRP. A combination of best management
practices (BMPs) is anticipated to be used to meet these requirements, including vacuum
6-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

sweeping of streets and parking lots, infiltration systems, parking lot implementation of multichambered treatment train (MCTTs) and wet detention basins.
Compared to Year 2000 Baseline conditions, the impact of this rule will result in load reductions
that range from 29% for TP to 22% for TSS as shown in Figure 6-2.
Programs to detect and eliminate illicit discharges and control pathogens that are harmful to
public health
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
As shown in Chapter 4, unknown sources are considered to contribute approximately 60% of the
fecal coliform load to the Menomonee River watershed. These sources may be caused by illicit
connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. A bacterial
identification program could therefore be very effective at reducing loads if it can pinpoint the
specific nature and location of these sources and if they can be removed. As recommended in
the RWQMPU, to address the threats to public health and degradation of water quality resulting
from human-specific pathogens and viruses entering stormwater systems, each municipality in
the study area should implement a program consisting of the following:
1) Enhanced storm sewer outfall monitoring to test for fecal coliform bacteria in dry- and
wet-weather discharges
2) Molecular tests for presence or absence of human-specific strains at outfalls where high
fecal coliform counts are found in the initial dry-weather screenings
3) Additional dry-weather screening upstream of outfalls where human-specific strains are
found to be present, with the goal of isolating the source of the discharge
4) Elimination of illicit discharges that were detected through the program described in the
preceding three steps
Additionally, comments received during the development of this WRP recommended monitoring
and testing of sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of new construction projects or new sewer
connection projects.
It is anticipated that the program outlined above would also identify cases where the unknown
fecal coliform sources are not illicit connections and the primary source of bacteria is stormwater
runoff. Examples could include nonpoint sources such as parks along streams where people
walk their dogs or impervious surfaces with large numbers of waterfowl. To adequately assess
the appropriate way to deal with such bacterial sources (and the potentially associated
pathogens), it is recommended that public health and ecological risk assessments be conducted to
address pathogens in stormwater runoff. Depending on the findings of the risk assessments,
consideration should be given to pursuing innovative means of identifying and controlling
possible pathogen sources in stormwater runoff.

6-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Combined Sewer Overflow / Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program (Point Source Plan)
(Sanitary Sewer Overflow: Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority,
Combined Sewer Overflow: Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The expected load reductions from the existing Point Source Plan were quantified during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Menomonee River WRP. These additional
load reductions, relative to the planned 2020 future with NR 151 (non-Ag only) condition, are
anticipated to range from less than 1% for TSS to 3% for fecal coliform and are presented Figure
6-2.
Industrial noncontact cooling water discharges
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
There are 67 known noncontact cooling water dischargers in the Menomonee River watershed
and, as shown in Chapter 4, these dischargers are a significant source of TP. It is believed that
the phosphorus is contained in the source water because the city of Brookfield and the
Milwaukee Water Works, which provide the majority of the drinking water to residents and
businesses within the watershed, add phosphorus compounds to their drinking waters. The
phosphorus compounds are added as corrosion control to prevent certain metals from leaching
from distribution systems and building plumbing materials into the treated water. Given the
public health benefits involved and the reliability of the current technology, the Milwaukee
Water Works has indicated that it would not consider changing its current practice.
Recognizing the public health benefits involved, it is not recommended that water utilities within
the Menomonee River watershed end their current practice. It is, however, recommended that
various groups (universities, the Milwaukee 7 Water Council, etc.) and water utilities in the
study area give further consideration to changing to an alternative technology that does not
increase phosphorus loading if such a technology is both effective in controlling corrosion in
pipes and cost-effective for the utility to implement. This development would have watershedwide significance, as well as the potential to revolutionize a national (and perhaps world-wide)
practice.
Industrial stormwater
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
Pollutant loads from industrial point sources are represented in the water quality model based on
permitted discharge limits. No changes to these permit limits are assumed to occur between the
existing and the future water quality models.
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permits (Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
The requirements placed on the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
stormwater permittees in the Menomonee River watershed are described in Chapter 5. These
requirements include a number of specific management measures that are individually described
elsewhere in this chapter, such as illicit discharge detection and elimination as well as postconstruction stormwater management.

6-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Chapter 13 revisions
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
Proposed revisions to the MMSD surface water and storm water rules (Chapter 13) stipulate
additional runoff management requirements for redevelopment. Based on the models developed
for the 2020 FP and the RWQMPU, these requirements are anticipated to reduce peak flow from
the re-developed area by 10 to 20%, as summarized below. Reduced peak flow will also lead to
reduced loads of a variety of pollutants, including TSS, TP, BOD, and fecal coliform.
1) If demolition or construction during redevelopment will disturb an area larger than 2
acres, then the redevelopment shall include runoff management techniques that will
reduce the runoff release rate by the amount listed in the following table for the 1% / 100year and 50% / 2-year storms, unless runoff management is required according to sec.
13.10(2), MMSD rules or if the exclusions of sec. 13.10(3)(a), (c), or (e) apply.
Area Disturbed by Demolition
or Construction

Reduction to the Existing
Runoff Release Rate from
the Site

Between 2 acres and 3.5 acres

10%

From 3.5 to 5 acres

15%

Greater than 5 acres

20%

2) If soil or groundwater contamination or other site features make the runoff release rate
reduction required by sub. (1) unreasonably stringent, then the redevelopment shall
achieve the greatest practicable reduction. The site development storm water
management plan shall describe the features that restrict runoff management options and
the reasons for the proposed runoff management techniques.
6.2.2 Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation
This section discusses the potential effectiveness of a range of other management strategies that
are being implemented to some degree in the Menomonee River watershed.
Preserve highly productive agricultural land
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The preservation of highly productive agricultural land will benefit water quality by avoiding the
conversion of pervious lands to impervious lands and the associated change in runoff volumes
and peak flow rates. Agricultural land also contributes lower loading rates for some pollutants,
such as metals, and avoids the need for additional wastewater treatment services.
Provide six months of manure storage for livestock operations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Manure management incorporates structural and non-structural practices to address manure
application, manure storage and animal lot runoff. Manure storage from confined livestock areas
allows the manure to be safely stockpiled until conditions are environmentally favorable for
spreading. In Wisconsin, common manure storage includes walled enclosures, earthen ponds,
above-ground tanks, and under-floor storage. When used in conjunction with livestock
management, manure management is assumed to reduce fecal coliforms from agricultural land
by about 50%.

6-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Control barnyard runoff
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Barnyard runoff control includes diversion of stormwater runoff from the confined area along
with a capture or filter technology for runoff from the area. Theoretically, a 100% reduction in
direct deposition of fecal matter could be achieved if all of the barnyard runoff can be captured
and treated.
Prepare and/or implement nutrient management plans
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Nutrient management involves practices for application of manure and any supplemental
nutrients to cropland. It is recommended that all livestock operations in the watershed with 35
combined animal units or greater as defined in Chapter NR 243, “Animal Feeding Operations,”
of the Wisconsin Administrative Code provide six months of manure storage to enable manure to
be spread on non-frozen fields twice a year. These practices could reduce fecal coliform bacteria
and E. coli concentrations by about 90%.
Convert marginal cropland and pasture to wetlands and prairies
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The conversion of cropland to forest/wetland areas was evaluated during the development of the
RWQMPU. The Root River Canal is located outside of the Menomonee River watershed, but is
characterized by similar agricultural land uses, soil types, and applications of controls relative to
the Menomonee River watershed. Based on a test model run for the West Branch of the Root
River Canal in which 15% of the cropland was converted to wetlands or prairies, rural
phosphorus loads were reduced by 13%, 20% for TSS, 18% for fecal coliform, and 16% for
BOD.
Manage contaminated sediment sites
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Most of the data on contaminants in sediments of the Menomonee River watershed are from the
Little Menomonee River and are related to the Moss-American U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Superfund site. From 2003 to 2005, sections of channel between Brown Deer
Road and Leon Terrace were relocated. Current plans call for five sections totaling six miles of
the Little Menomonee River to be treated by rerouting the channel, removing and treating the
contaminated sediment, filling the old channel, and re-vegetating the new channel. Eliminating
contaminated sediments from the river has the potential to significantly improve the habitat for
the affected portion of the watershed.

6-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Maintain and preserve environmentally significant lands
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The District’s Greenseams Program is an important example of ongoing efforts to maintain and
preserve environmentally significant lands. The purpose of Greenseams is to purchase natural
wetlands to retain stormwater and reduce the risk of future flooding problems. Although no
Greenseams projects currently exist in the Menomonee River watershed, this WRP recommends
that they be initiated. Purchased properties provide multiple benefits to the local community in
the form of open space and wildlife habitat. The preservation of open space and wildlife habitat
provides the public with passive recreation opportunities to quietly enjoy natural settings without
extensive public facilities.
Note: Increased recreational opportunities will benefit the Menomonee River watershed.
Recreation can increase awareness of the river as well as impact amenity value, personal
relationships to the river, and community connections necessary to provide the financial
resources necessary to address water quality concerns.
Expand riparian buffers and maintain groundwater seepage
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update RWQMPU high priority)
Modeling conducted in support of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Menomonee River WRP
indicated that the expansion of riparian areas in a rural portion of the Root River watershed
would reduce loads of TSS, TP, and total nitrogen (TN) to the stream by approximately 8%.
This is consistent with values found in the general literature, including within urban areas, and is
therefore considered a good approximation for the Menomonee River watershed. While
planning for expansion of riparian buffers, note that ongoing maintenance is an important
consideration for these areas.
Riparian litter and debris control
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Efforts to remove litter and debris from riparian areas of the Menomonee River watershed will
greatly improve the aesthetic value of the streams. The SEWRPC indicates that addressing
aesthetics also includes the management of invasive species and the rehabilitation of in-stream
and riparian habitat for both human purposes as well as ecological purposes. See SEWRPC’s
MR-194 in Appendix 4A for a complete discussion of impairments and response.
Research and implement projects on nonpoint pollution controls
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
A great deal of information is already available on the effectiveness of various nonpoint source
pollution controls using the work completed for the RWQMPU. However, this WRP
recommends that studies be continued to refine those practices that make the most sense for the
Menomonee River watershed, both in terms of environmental benefit and acceptance by local
stakeholders. This refinement should include continuation of the MMSD’s yearly nonpoint
demonstration projects with an emphasis on documentation of the source reduction data. Future
work should include analysis of the performance of the various demonstration projects already
funded.

6-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

To the extent practicable, protect remaining natural stream channels including small
tributaries and shoreland wetlands
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Riparian habitat conditions can have a strong influence on water quality and existing natural
stream channels should be protected. Wooded riparian buffers are a vital functional component
of stream ecosystems and are instrumental in the detention, removal, and assimilation of
nutrients, soil, and other pollutants from or by the water column. Therefore, a stream with good
riparian habitat is better able to prevent erosion and moderate the impacts of high nutrient loads
than a stream with poor habitat. Wooded riparian buffers can also provide shading that reduces
stream temperatures and increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation capacity of the stream.
Continue collection programs for household hazardous wastes and expand such programs to
communities that currently do not have them
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Leftover household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are
considered to be “household hazardous waste.” Common products include paints, cleaners, oils,
batteries, and pesticides. Improper disposal of household hazardous wastes include pouring them
down the drain, on the ground, into storm sewers, or putting them in the trash. Collection
programs allow communities to safely dispose of these wastes, thus protecting the environment
and reducing threats to public health.
Continue and possibly expand current Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, and U.S. Geological Survey water quality monitoring
programs, including Phases II and III of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Corridor Study
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Continued agency water quality monitoring will be essential to track the progress of the
management measures included in the WRP. T he MMSD plans to install X real-time WQ
stations over the next X years.
Continue and possibly expand U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging program
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Continued stream gauging efforts will be essential to track the progress of the management
measures included in the WRP. This effort is already partially under way through MMSD’s realtime monitoring stations. These stations monitor continuous water-quality information using
remote sensor technology with the data collected by the MMSD in cooperation with the USGS.
Collection of continuous data will allow scientists to better assess how water quality responds
seasonally and in response to storm events.
Continue citizen-based water quality monitoring efforts
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Continued citizen-based water quality monitoring will be essential to track the progress of the
management measures included in the WRP. See Appendix 4A for recommendations for citizenbased monitoring.

6-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Bacterial ID Program
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
As shown in Chapter 4, unknown sources are considered to contribute approximately 50 to 75%
of the fecal coliform load to certain reaches in the Menomonee River watershed. These sources
may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other
unidentified sources. A bacterial identification program could therefore be very effective at
reducing loads it if is successful in better pinpointing the specific nature and location of these
sources so that they can be removed.
Implementing chloride reduction programs
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Water quality monitoring data set forth in SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39 indicated that
chloride concentrations in the Menomonee River have been increasing. Since 1993, the mean
concentration of chloride at all stations has been increasing. A recent study conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, included as Appendix
5A, showed very high chloride concentrations in area streams. It is therefore recommended that
the municipalities and counties in the study area continue to evaluate their practices regarding the
application of chlorides for ice and snow control and strive to obtain optimal application rates to
ensure public safety without applying more chlorides than necessary for that purpose.
Municipalities should also consider alternatives to current ice and snow control programs and
implement educational programs that provide information about alternative ice and snow control
measures in public and private parking lots, optimal application rates in such areas, alternative
water softening media, and the use of more-efficient water softeners that are regenerated based
upon the amount of water used and the quality of the water.
Limited information is available regarding the effectiveness of road salt reduction programs to
reduce chloride loads to streams. However, a TMDL implementation plan prepared for the
Shingle Creek watershed in Minnesota concluded that a 71% reduction could be achieved by
implementing a plan based on the following five principles:1
Use appropriate snow plow techniques
Select, store, and apply materials appropriately
Encourage communication between applicators
Foster stewardship through improved applicator awareness
Communicate with the public
Both in the RWQMPU and this WRP, efforts were undertaken to develop a mass balance
“model” to reflect the impacts of reduced chloride use on watershed water quality. In both
instances, the data available (both salt use and water quality data) were inadequate to develop
any meaningful results.
Actions underway include evaluation of MMSD/USGS real time monitoring of conductivity in
the Menomonee River, and correlation of the conductivity with chloride concentration.
1

Wenck Associates, Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan, prepared for the Shingle Creek Water
Management Commission (February 2007)

6-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Restore wetlands, woodlands, and grasslands adjacent to the stream channels and establish
riparian buffers
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The expected load reductions from converting croplands to wetlands were modeled during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Menomonee River WRP. Load reductions
of 13% for TP, 20% for TSS, 18% for fecal coliform, and 16% for BOD were predicted
assuming conversion of 15% of the cropland. The restoration of wetlands, woodlands and
grasslands immediately adjacent to stream channels would increase the acreage of riparian
buffers and improve water quality in the Menomonee River watershed.
Implement programs to discourage unacceptably high numbers of waterfowl from
congregating near water features
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Waterfowl control measures are various methods that can be used to reduce the waterfowl
population around waterways. Potential measures include chemical repellent and erecting a
barrier, possibly a stone wall, hedge, or plastic fencing along the shoreline. However, the use of
chemicals and unnatural physical barriers would be less desirable than planting buffer strips of
natural tall grasses, plants, or shrubs.
Waterfowl droppings are believed to be a major contributor to coliform in waterways, although
their loads have not been quantified for the Menomonee River watershed and therefore it is not
possible to quantify the potential load reductions from this management measure.
Reduce soil erosion from cropland
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
A number of practices can significantly reduce soil erosion from cropland, including
conservation tillage, vegetated filter strips, grassed waterways, and riparian buffers. These
practices can be very effective at reducing soil erosion, with reductions of 88% reported for
conservation tillage, 65% for filter strips, 93% for grassed waterways, and 20% for riparian
buffers.2,3
Restrict livestock access to streams
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Preventing livestock from directly accessing streams prevents the direct deposition of manure
into the waterways and also provides streambank and shoreline protection by reducing livestock
damage due to bank erosion and overgrazing bank vegetation. The Lake Champlain Basin
Watershed Project in Vermont showed that reducing cattle access to streams reduced fecal
coliforms by about 38%.4

2

USEPA, National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture (EPA 841-B-03004, July 2003)
3
Winer, R.. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition
Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD (2000)
4
USEPA, Section 319 Success Stories, Vol. III, Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project: Significant Pollutant
Reductions Achieved, http://www.epa.gov/nps/Section319III/VT.htm (Updated February 2007)

6-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Manage milking center wastewater
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Milking center wastewater derives from water used to clean milking systems, bulk tanks, cows,
buildings, and equipment in milkhouses, milking parlors, and holding areas. Unmanaged
milking center wastewater can cause significant water quality problems due to high
concentrations of fecal coliform, nutrients, and BOD. Milking center wastewater can be
disposed of by adding it to manure and land spreading the resulting mixture, through
underground treatment, and storing wastewater in a holding tank or lagoon. Each of these
practices can be very effective in reducing or eliminating the discharge of pollutants to nearby
surface waters and groundwater.
Expand oversight and maintenance of private onsite wastewater treatment systems
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Failures of private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTs) can result in untreated
wastewater and sewage entering the groundwater and/or nearby waterway; regular maintenance
and inspection is required to ensure proper operation of a system and can eliminate this source of
pollution. Failing systems within 300 feet of waterways may contribute 10,000 colony-forming
units per 100 milliliters (colony forming units (cfu) /100 ml) to receiving waters and direct
discharges of septic system sewage can contribute up to 12 million cfu/100 ml. Expanded
oversight and maintenance of POWTs therefore could reduce a potentially significant source of
fecal coliform.
Manage pet litter
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Improved pet litter management can be accomplished through a variety of efforts, including fines
for failure to comply with established ordinances and a public education program that includes
signs, pick-up bags and receptacles in key areas as well as inclusion of pet litter control in overall
public water quality informational brochures and newsletters. The effectiveness of a pet litter
control program is dependent on its implementation and enforcement, but could result in an
approximate 50% reduction in fecal coliform loads from grassed residential areas.
Concrete channel renovation and rehabilitation (includes drop structures)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The MMSD commissioned a study of sediment transport in the Menomonee River watershed in
2001 and, of the 63 miles of channel examined, about 14.5 miles were found to be lined with
concrete or riprap, consist of bedrock, or were enclosed in conduit. Efforts to rehabilitate these
impacted channels will result in a channel with vastly improved habitat for aquatic life and
potential improvements to flashiness and water quality. For example, flashiness could improve to
the extent that additional floodplain storage is created and water quality could improve if the new
channel is less conducive to excessive algal growth. Note that hazardous materials assessments
should be considered during planning and design of channel renovation and rehabilitation
projects; some concrete channels overlay contaminated soils.

6-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Limit number of culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments and
incorporate design measures to allow for passage of aquatic life
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The significant number of culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments
located along the Menomonee River and its tributaries severely limit the amount of suitable
habitat. Efforts to limit such structures will be critical to attracting and retaining desired fish and
macroinvertebrate communities.
Remove abandoned bridges and culverts or reduce culvert length
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Abandoned bridges and extended culverts also limit the amount of suitable habitat within the
watershed and serve as barriers to aquatic life. Efforts to remove the bridges and reduce the
culvert lengths are needed to attract and retain desired fish and macroinvertebrate communities.
Restore, enhance, and rehabilitate stream channels to provide improved water quality and
quantity of available fisheries habitat
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Habitat management efforts should focus on maintaining and restoring the riparian functions that
are often lost when streams are channelized or riparian areas are otherwise encroached upon.
High quality channel habitats with intact riparian zones and natural channel morphology may
improve water quality by assimilating excess nutrients directly into plant biomass (e.g., trees and
macrophytes), by sequestering nutrients into invertebrate and vertebrate biomass, by “deflecting”
nutrients into the immediate riparian zone during overland (flood) flow events, and by reducing
sunlight through shading.
Monitor fish and macroinvertebrate populations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Enhanced monitoring of fish and macroinvertebrate populations will be essential to track the
progress of the management measures included in the WRP. Biological monitoring provides
direct information on one of the ultimate goals of the WRP (improved biology) and also can
provide important insight into other aspects of general watershed health (e.g., habitat and water
quality conditions).
Continue and support programs to reduce the spread of exotic invasive species, including
public education programs
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Invasive species are alien species whose introduction causes economic or environmental harm or
harm to public health. Invasive species can affect aquatic ecosystems directly or by affecting the
land in ways that harm aquatic ecosystems. Common sources of aquatic invasive species include
introduction of ballast water, aquaculture escapes, and accidental and/or intentional
introductions, among others. Public education programs are therefore one important way to
attempt to control the spread of invasive species.

6-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Monitor exotic invasive species
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Enhanced monitoring of exotic invasive species populations will be essential to track the
progress of the management measures included in the WRP.
Continue maintenance of Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District conveyance system
modeling tools
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Continued maintenance of the MMSD conveyance system modeling tools is an important
activity because the tools allow for decision makers to evaluate the potential benefits of a variety
of conveyance system improvements.
Continue maintenance of watershed-wide riverine water quality models (Loading Simulation
Program in C++)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Continued maintenance of the watershed-wide riverine water quality models is an important
activity because the tools allow for decision makers to evaluate the potential benefits of a variety
of management measures, including many of those included in this WRP.
Disconnect residential roof drains from sanitary and combined sewers and infiltrate roof
runoff, including rain barrels and rain gardens
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The expected load reductions from residential roof drain disconnections were modeled during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and this WRP using the following assumptions:
Rain barrels and downspout disconnection were applied to 15% of the residences. The
modelers assumed that downspouts serve approximately 50% of the impervious area on
residential lots, so the effective application rate to residential impervious area was 7.5%.
Rain barrels will presumably be used for horticultural irrigation and the overflow from
rain barrels is also supposed to be routed to pervious areas. Therefore, the water routed
through rain barrels was modeled as a lateral surface input on pervious land areas.
Rain gardens/bioretention cells and downspout disconnection were assumed to apply to a
different 15% of new and existing residences. As with rain barrels, it was assumed that
50% of the impervious area on the lots is routed to these structures, for an effective
application rate of 7.5%. The rain gardens were simulated as an infiltration BMP.
Load reductions of fecal coliform, TSS and TP are expected because stormwater plays a
prominent role in transporting these pollutants to the Menomonee River. Also, actions that
reduce TSS loads often result in coincident reductions in TP loads because some forms of
phosphorus compounds are frequently attached to TSS. Ultimately, actions that reduce or slow
stormwater runoff typically result in reduced fecal coliform, TP and TSS loads. The results of
this analysis indicated that fecal coliform loads could be reduced by approximately 10%, with
TSS and TP loads reduced by 1.5% and 1%, respectively. In addition, the rain gardens and rain
barrels were predicted to decrease flashiness by approximately 2% (based on an analysis done on
Underwood Creek).

6-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Develop according to approved land use plans
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
The land use plans are linked to watershed modeling; therefore, development according to the
approved plans should be sought. Adherence to the plans will increase the chances for success at
achieving the water quality goals and reduce the likelihood that new development will result in
disproportionate impacts to water quality within the watershed.
Dam abandonment and restoration plans
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update low priority)
There are many environmental benefits to dam abandonment or removal, including re-connection
of important seasonal fish habitat, normalized temperature regimes, improved water clarity (in
most cases), improved dissolved oxygen concentrations, normalized sediment and energy
transport, and improved biological diversity.
6.2.3 Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water
Quality Management Plan Update, but Not Yet Implemented
This section describes the management strategies recommended for implementation in the
RWQMPU but not yet initiated within the Menomonee River watershed.
Implement collection programs for expired and unused household pharmaceuticals and
personal care products
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
A program to collect household pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) within the
watershed should be initiated to allow communities to safely dispose of PPCPs, thus protecting
the environment and reducing threats to public health. Establish partnerships with health care
facilities, senior citizen care facilities and pharmacies to identify opportunities and implement
programs to reduce PPCP waste.
Establish long-term water quality monitoring programs for areas outside of Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District service area
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Establishing long-term water quality monitoring outside of those areas already monitored by the
MMSD will be essential to track the progress of the management measures included in the WRP.
Conduct assessments and evaluations on the significance for public health and aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife of the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in surface
waters
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are used by individuals for personal health or
cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock. The PPCPs
comprise a diverse collection of thousands of chemical substances, including prescription and
over-the-counter therapeutic drugs, veterinary drugs, fragrances, and cosmetics. Studies have
shown that pharmaceuticals are present in our nation's waterbodies and some research suggests
that certain drugs may cause ecological harm. This WRP recommends that an evaluation be
conducted regarding the potential significance of this issue within the Menomonee River
watershed.

6-19

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Establish long-term fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring stations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Long-term fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring stations should be established to allow
decision makers to track progress in the health and diversity of the aquatic community.
Establish long-term aquatic habitat monitoring stations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Long-term habitat monitoring stations should be established to allow decision makers to track
progress in improving aquatic habitat.
Follow recommendations of the regional water supply plan regarding maintenance of
groundwater recharge areas
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Following the recommendations of the regional water supply plan regarding maintenance of
groundwater will help ensure that recharge areas will benefit the watershed by improving the
likelihood that a clean and sufficient supply of groundwater is available.
Utilize groundwater sustainability guidance results in evaluating the sustainability of proposed
developments and in conduct of local land use planning
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Groundwater sustainability issues should be factored into the review of proposed developments
and the development of local land use planning efforts to improve the likelihood that a clean and
sufficient supply of groundwater is available.
Consider more intensive fisheries management measures where warranted
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
More intensive fisheries management may be needed to restore the fishery in the Menomonee
River and should be considered as one element of this WRP.
6.3

Prioritization of Management Measures

Effective implementation of this WRP requires the prioritization of the identified management
measures so that limited resources are directed toward those efforts that are most likely to be
effective. Measures must also be prioritized so that lessons learned from certain measures can be
used to inform efforts scheduled to take place at a later date. Notes have been added to Section
6.2 to show the prioritization of the actions based upon the RWQMPU. This prioritization must
be evaluated and either confirmed or revised by the SWWT and WAT.
This process of prioritization is documented in Chapter 7. Input on prioritization was received
through comments from the review of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 by the stakeholders for the WRP
(SWWT, WAT, SEWRPC and MMSD).
6.4
Water Quality Improvements Estimated with the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update
Implementation of the management measures identified in this WRP should result in improved
conditions within the Menomonee River watershed. Although many of these improvements
cannot be easily quantified, the water quality models have been used to evaluate the potential
significance of several of them, all of which are called for under the RWQMPU. These include
6-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

meeting NR 151 standards beyond those achieved under the Baseline Year 2000 condition, the
Point Source Plan, and additional measures called for under the RWQMPU. These measures
will contribute to some reduction in phosphorus loads due to various fertilizer management
efforts. However, the model results will probably underestimate the TP load reduction because
they did not account for the statewide fertilizer ban. These improvements are presented in the
following sections by assessment point and are based on the scoring guidelines summarized in
Table 6-3. The table presents data from the Baseline 2000, Baseline 2020 (year 2020 planned
growth – no management measures), and Plan 2020 (full implementation of the RWQMPU)
conditions. Additional information about each metric is provided in the following sections:
Flashiness
Flashiness trend scores were calculated using the Richards-Baker (R-B) Index.5 The assessments
were based upon interpolations of box-and-whisker charts provided in Baker et al. Consistent
with the index, the range of flashiness values is partitioned into quartiles and the highest
flashiness values corresponding to poor conditions. The assessments are based off of quartile
assignments.
DO-Minimum (May-Oct)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per summer season during the 10-year
modeling period that the 5.0 mg/L minimum target is met. The colors are assigned based upon
the percent compliance color scheme.
DO-Maximum (May-Oct)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per summer season during the 10-year
modeling period that the 15.0 mg/L maximum target is met. The colors are assigned based upon
the percent compliance color scheme.
Fecal Coliform (annual)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours during the 10-year modeling period that the
400 count/ 100 ml [not-to-exceed] target is met during the entire year. The colors are assigned
based upon the percent compliance color scheme.
Fecal Coliform (May-Sep)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per recreation season (May through
September) during the 10-year modeling period that the 400 count/ 100 ml [not-to-exceed] target
is met. The colors are assigned based upon the percent compliance color scheme.
TP
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours during the 10-year modeling period that the
0.1 mg/L target is met. The colors are assigned based upon the percent compliance color
scheme.
TSS

5

Baker, D., Richards, R., Loftus, T., and Kramer, J, “A New Flashiness Index: Characteristics and Applications to
Midwestern Rivers and Streams,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association Vol. 40(2):503-522 (2004)

6-21

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The percentage compliance is the percent of years that the mean annual concentration met the
17.2 mg/L [reference concentration] target. The mean annual concentration is calculated as the
annual average of the 365 or 366 daily average concentrations. The colors are assigned based
upon the percent compliance color scheme.
TABLE 6-3
SCORING OF WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE MENOMONEE RIVER
DO, FC, TP, & TSS

Flashiness

Percentage Compliance
Score

Description

Minimum

Maximum

Quartile

Minimum

Maximum

Very Good

95

100

Lowest

0

0.45

Good

85

94

Lower Middle

0.46

0.55

Moderate

75

84

Upper Middle

0.56

0.75

Poor

0

74

Highest

0.76

2

Assessment
Point

Modeled
Condition

Flashiness

DO-Min
(May-Oct)

DO-Max
(May-Oct)

Fecal
Coliform
(annual)

Fecal
Coliform
(May-Sep)

TP

TSS

MN-1

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.30
0.32
0.32

80%
80%
80%

100%
100%
100%

81%
79%
80%

89%
88%
87%

95%
95%
95%

100%
100%
100%

MN-2

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.25
0.28
0.28

99%
99%
99%

100%
100%
100%

75%
72%
73%

86%
84%
85%

70%
69%
70%

100%
100%
100%

MN-3

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.49
0.57
0.55

82%
82%
82%

100%
100%
100%

77%
76%
76%

90%
89%
87%

91%
90%
91%

100%
100%
100%

MN-4

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.44
0.50
0.48

92%
89%
89%

100%
100%
100%

76%
74%
75%

87%
86%
86%

93%
93%
93%

100%
100%
100%

MN-5

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.33
0.37
0.36

98%
98%
99%

100%
100%
100%

68%
66%
67%

82%
81%
81%

70%
68%
69%

100%
100%
100%

6-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

MN-6

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.48
0.65
0.64

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

72%
70%
72%

83%
82%
83%

90%
88%
89%

60%
100%
100%

MN-7

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.69
0.75
0.73

85%
84%
84%

100%
100%
100%

69%
69%
72%

81%
81%
84%

85%
87%
87%

10%
100%
100%

MN-8

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.67
0.69
0.68

87%
87%
87%

100%
100%
100%

64%
65%
68%

79%
80%
82%

85%
86%
87%

30%
100%
100%

MN-9

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.42
n/a
0.46

98%
98%
98%

100%
100%
100%

57%
56%
59%

76%
75%
78%

69%
66%
68%

70%
100%
100%

MN-10

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.31
0.32
0.33

95%
96%
96%

100%
100%
100%

57%
58%
59%

73%
73%
74%

89%
90%
91%

0%
0%
20%

MN-11

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.46
0.50
0.49

96%
96%
96%

100%
100%
100%

53%
53%
54%

70%
70%
71%

89%
90%
91%

100%
100%
100%

MN-12

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.42
n/a
0.46

98%
98%
98%

100%
100%
100%

50%
49%
52%

69%
69%
72%

69%
68%
69%

100%
100%
100%

MN-13

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.65
0.67
0.66

92%
92%
92%

98%
99%
99%

61%
62%
64%

77%
78%
80%

83%
85%
86%

60%
100%
100%

MN-14

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.72
0.72
0.71

95%
96%
96%

100%
100%
100%

63%
63%
65%

79%
79%
81%

84%
86%
87%

60%
100%
100%

6-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

6.5

Menomonee River

MN-15

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.46
0.49
0.48

99%
100%
99%

100%
100%
100%

47%
47%
50%

67%
68%
70%

84%
84%
87%

80%
100%
100%

MN-16

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.83
0.83
0.82

82%
82%
83%

92%
92%
92%

66%
66%
68%

81%
81%
82%

84%
85%
85%

100%
100%
100%

MN-17

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.49
0.51
0.50

99%
99%
99%

100%
100%
100%

47%
47%
49%

67%
67%
70%

66%
65%
67%

70%
100%
100%

MN-18

Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020

0.49
0.49
0.49

99%
99%
98%

100%
100%
100%

48%
47%
50%

68%
68%
71%

52%
50%
52%

70%
100%
100%

Allocations

Allocation of pollutant reductions required to meet applicable water quality standards in the
Menomonee River watershed should be deferred at this time for the following reasons:
1) For fecal coliform, allocations would have to be made using a measure (fecal coliform)
that is an imperfect indicator of threats to public health and that is likely to be changed in
favor of a better indicator (discussed in Section 7.2.1 of the WRP). The allocations
would have to assume a high level of reduction of any illicit human fecal coliform
sources because these are not “permitted” discharges. Because there could be multiple
sources of such discharges that would be attributable to multiple entities, it would be very
difficult to equitably allocate loads. Further, any allocations based upon fecal coliform
are likely to only be temporary given the probability that the fecal coliform water quality
criterion will be phased out in the future in favor of better measurements that address the
risks of human bacteria and pathogens.
2) Regarding phosphorus, allocations of allowable loads could result in the need to treat
cooling water discharges or require that communities reduce the amount of phosphorus
used in drinking water systems for metal exposure control. Both actions would require
significant cost, based on current technology. In addition, the recently enacted ban on
phosphate containing fertilizers may produce enough reductions that most, if not all, of
the assessment point reaches in the Menomonee River watershed will meet the pending
phosphorus water quality standard, assumed to be 0.1 mg/l. The impact from the ban on
phosphorus in fertilizers needs to be analyzed further.
3) The remaining water quality parameters (TSS, TN, chlorides, etc.) either do not have
water quality standards or already meet water quality guidelines. Specifically:
6-24

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

a. The median TSS for the entire Menomonee River watershed already meets the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Reference Concentration of 17.2 mg/l. To
address localized, high concentrations of TSS, local sediment issues should also
be monitored and analyzed.
b. Compliance with the water quality standard for DO (which is affected by several
pollutants including nitrogen, BOD and sediment as well as other factors such as
the concrete channels, which promote algal growth) is met for the most part in the
entire watershed.
c. Chlorides may prove to be the largest water quality issue that needs further action
for habitat improvement, but the data base for chlorides is not sufficient to assess
the overall impact of chlorides on water quality.
Therefore, it is recommended that the allocation issue be considered at some future date when
and if a TMDL is conducted on the Menomonee River or as a part of a watershed permitting
effort. The implementation of NR 151 (non-Ag only) may offer some opportunities to develop
an “allocation” program based upon the various municipal permit and regulatory requirements.

6-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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

Additional Management Strategies

The recommended management strategies from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission’s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) were
used as the basis for the recommendations of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). Chapter 6
presents the RWQMPU’s management strategies and estimates the pollutant load reductions
from the major components of the RWQMPU. During the development of this WRP, the project
team and the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) committees enhanced or
expanded some of the RWQMPU’s management strategies, changed the priority for some of the
strategies, and developed some new management strategies. These additional or modified
management strategies are presented in the following section. As Chapter 6 identified each
management measure’s assigned priority from Tables 93-99 within the RWQMPU, the following
section also identifies the priority, determined during the development of this WRP, for each
additional management strategy. The additional strategies are partitioned into three subsections:
committed programs, strategies that are in various stages of implementation, and strategies that
are not yet implemented.
7.1.1 Committed Programs
Transportation controls
(high priority)
The Wis. Admin. Code Transportation (Trans) 401 rule requires BMPs “…to be employed to
avoid or minimize soil, sediment and pollutant movement, or to manage runoff, onto or off a
project site or selected site, including the avoidance or minimization of discharges to off–site
areas, public sewer inlets and waters of the state.” The rule requires new transportation facilities
to reduce the TSS loads by 80% and requires highway reconstruction and non-highway
redevelopment to reduce TSS loads by 40%. It also requires the peak discharge to be maintained
to that of the predevelopment, 2-year 24-hour design event.
Phosphorus fertilizer ban
(medium priority)
The state of Wisconsin enacted a ban on the sale of phosphorus-containing fertilizers that will
take effect on April 1, 2010. It is expected that this ban will have a reduction on phosphorus
loads to the Menomonee River watershed due to the reduced application of fertilizers containing
phosphorus. Because the bill to ban phosphorus fertilizer had not been finalized at the time the
water quality model was prepared, the expected load reductions from the ban were not modeled
during the development of this plan; however, phosphorus loads from residential grass are
estimated to decrease by approximately 20% based on studies in communities that have
implemented similar bans. 1 The state of Wisconsin ban will likely result in a similar reduction.

1

Lehman, J.T., D. W. Bell, and K. E. McDonald, “Reduced river phosphorus following implementation of a lawn
fertilizer ordinance,” Lake and Reservoir Management (in press)

7-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Phosphorus water quality standard
(medium priority)
It was not possible to quantify the expected load reductions resulting from a statewide
phosphorus water quality standard as the process was ongoing during the development of this
WRP. However, yearly average phosphorus concentrations at many of the assessment points in
the Menomonee River watershed are already less than 0.1 mg/L and the statewide ban on
phosphorus fertilizers is expected to result in additional decreases. (see previous discussion on
the phosphorus fertilizer ban)
Delisting of Beneficial Use Impairments within the Area of Concern
(high priority)
The Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC) includes the Menomonee River downstream of
its confluence with the Little Menomonee River and the Little Menomonee River, between its
confluence with the mainstem and STH 100. Of the 14 beneficial uses, 11 are impaired within
the Milwaukee Estuary AOC (referred to as beneficial use impairments [BUI]) including the
following:
• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
• Eutrophication or undesirable algae
• Degradation of fish and wildlife populations
• Beach closings
• Fish tumors or other deformities
• Degradation of aesthetics
• Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
• Degradation of benthos
• Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
• Restriction on dredging activities
• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
The Milwaukee River Basin Partnership, WDNR, and other stakeholders have implemented
projects to address the BUIs within the Milwaukee Estuary AOC. However, more work is needed
to achieve delisting, including additional studies and the development of a comprehensive
delisting strategy that is based on public input.
The RWQMPU’s strategies and the WRP’s Priority and Foundation Actions are consistent with
the overall goal of delisting BUIs within the AOC. This WRP distills the RWQMPU’s strategies
into specific sets of actions that are designed to target public health, habitat and phosphorus
loading within the Menomonee River. Implementation of this WRP will directly contribute to
delisting the BUIs presented below.
Table 7-4 presents the WRP’s Priority Actions that will specifically target the following BUIs by
reducing point and nonpoint source loading of nutrients and sediment. Note: the following
descriptions were obtained from the WDNR’s Delisting Targets for the Milwaukee Estuary Area
of Concern 2.
2

WDNR, Delisting Targets for the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, March 2008

7-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Eutrophication or undesirable algae – This BUI is caused by excessive nutrient loading
and low dissolved oxygen concentrations which enrich aquatic environments and support
excessive algal growth.
• Degradation of aesthetics – This BUI is caused by unnatural physical properties that
interfere with designated uses of the waterway, such as litter.
• Degradation of benthos – This BUI can be caused by excessive sediment loading.
• Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations – This BUI can be
caused by a number of factors including excessive nutrient loading from point and
nonpoint sources and sedimentation.

Table 7-1 presents the WRP’s Priority Actions that will reduce the beach closing BUI within the
Milwaukee Estuary AOC.

Beach closings – This BUI is caused by point and nonpoint pollution that leads to
elevated E coli concentrations.

The WRP’s Priority Actions that are geared toward land-based habitat and instream-based
habitat will directly target the fish and wildlife-related BUIs below. The Priority Actions are
listed on Tables 7-2 and 7-3.

Loss of fish and wildlife habitat – This BUI results from wetland loss, flashiness,
channel obstructions and concrete lining.
• Degradation of fish and wildlife populations – This BUI is caused by multiple factors
including the loss of fish and wildlife habitat and the presence of invasive species.
Implementation of the RWQMPU will address toxic substances and work toward delisting the
three remaining BUIs within the Milwaukee Estuary AOC, fish tumors or other deformities,
restriction on dredging activities, and bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems.
7.1.2 Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation
Green Milwaukee
(high priority)
The city of Milwaukee is promoting building “green,” which can have a positive impact on water
quality within the Menomonee River watershed. For example, a green roof installed on the city
owned building at 809 North Broadway will prevent about 10,500 gallons of water from going
into the sewer system. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) is developing a
Green Infrastructure Plan to enhance and further their focus on sustainability and the use of
green infrastructure to store, convey, and use rainwater in more natural ways. Other
municipalities are also promoting green development, such as encouraging more low impact
development (LID) and greater use of green infrastructure. The use of LID and green
infrastructure on new or re-developments can result in significant reductions in runoff and
pollutant loadings compared to traditional construction.

7-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Total Maximum Daily Load or Environmental Accountability Project
(discussed in Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update but not
recommended)(medium priority)
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is an analysis that shows how much pollution a waterbody
can receive and still meet water quality standards. An Environmental Accountability Project
(EAP) is an alternative to a TMDL that provides recommendations for significantly reducing the
pollutant loading that is contributing to an impairment of a waterbody. Because both of these
efforts would result in additional study of the Menomonee River watershed, it is not possible to
quantify the expected load reductions or other benefits at this time from these potential studies.
The MMSD submitted a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant application to conduct a 3rd
Party TMDL on the Menomonee River watershed in 2010. At the time this WRP was written, the
grants had not been awarded.
Implement Actions Identified in the MMSD’s Menomonee River Watershed Sediment
Transport Study (medium priority)
Excessive sediment in streams can cover areas along the channel bottom that aquatic organisms
need to survive. It can also create piles in streams that can create impediments for canoeing and
kayaking and perhaps increase the risk of overland flooding during high flows. In February,
2001, the MMSD completed a sediment transport study for the Menomonee River watershed.
The MMSD plans to use the study to guide appropriate planning for flood management, bank
stabilization and stream channel rehabilitation activities within the watershed. Site-specific
projects were recommended to improve channel bed and bank stability, ecological potential, and
enhance recreational and aesthetic value.
REFERENCE: (MMSD, Sediment Transport Study of the Menomonee River Watershed,
February 7, 2001)
7.1.3

Additional Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation, But Not Yet
Implemented
Improve aesthetics
(high priority)
Stakeholders have identified improved aesthetics as one of their most important goals for the
watershed. Actions that would improve aesthetics and promote stewardship of the watershed
include restoring areas for recreational use, improved public access, implementing green
infrastructure and removing concrete-lined channels. Efforts to beautify the stream corridor will
therefore need to be a critical aspect of implementing this WRP.
7.2

Identification of Priority Actions

The identification of Priority Actions builds upon the analyses of the SEWRPC’s RWQMPU and
the MMSD’s 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP), both of which identified numerous management
measures that would result in meeting watershed goals.
The SWWT Science Committee determined three areas of highest concern, called focus areas.
These include bacteria/public health; habitat and aesthetics; and nutrients/phosphorus (see

7-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapters 3 and 5). The technical team then identified a list of Priority Actions for each of the
three focus areas, based on the high priority recommendations identified in the RWQMPU.
Based on input from the Watershed Action Team (WAT), Policy Committee, and the Science
Committee, the technical team compiled the list of actions into a “priority actions matrix” as a
reference document. The matrix includes four tables: one for public health/bacteria (Table 7-1),
two for habitat – one for land-based measures (Table 7-2) one for instream-based measures
(Table 7-3), and one for nutrients/phosphorus (Table 7-4).
The tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five years to continue
improving water quality and habitat in the Menomonee River watershed and are meant to be
used as a guide for future actions by the SWWT and its committees; they are not meant to
exclude any recommendations from the RWQMPU. Additional actions identified in the
RWQMPU can be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of this WRP and in Chapter X of SEWRPC’s
RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50.
The information in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 may change over time and as other projects are
implemented. The information should be verified during the preparation of more detailed work
plans as the next steps of implementation are completed. All of the recommendations in the
RWQMPU contribute to improving water quality and habitat within the Menomonee River
watershed and achieving the overall goals of the RWQMPU. Although some recommendations
are not included in the Priority Actions tables, this does not mean they should not be carried
forward or implemented as opportunities arise. The high Priority Actions are merely identified
to guide the implementation process based on the knowledge and data available as of March
2010.
Figure 7-1 summarizes the process to determine actions needed and briefly describes the
components of the tables. The components of the tables are explained in more detail in the
following text.

7-5

FIGURE 7-1

PRIORITY ACTIONS DEVELOPMENT
AND PRESENTATION
Menomonee River Watershed
.]

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

1) Issues – Problems in the watershed. The purpose of this WRP is to address water
quality and habitat issues within the Menomonee River watershed. The following three
issues are addressed by the Priority Actions:
a. Reduce the risk of getting sick if you swim in or otherwise contact the water (too
many bacteria and pathogens in the water)
b. Reduce the impact of development on habitat and aesthetics, including the
following:
i.

Address human-induced runoff from the land surface to the stream system
(reduced buffer widths, pollution, and increased erosion)

ii. Address stream flashiness (rapid increase and decrease in flows; impacts to
runoff peak rate and volume; threat to public safety)
iii.

Address the impacts of human influences on instream fishery habitat,
water quality and aesthetics (obstructions to fish and aquatic life passage,
including concrete-lined channels and low-gradient dams; pollution;
vegetation; and trash)

c. Reduce the nutrient impacts on the watershed and discharge of nutrients,
specifically phosphorus, from the watershed to Lake Michigan (excessive algae
and Cladophora growth)
Issues can be linked to physical factors, chemical factors, or both. Often, there are
multiple factors that contribute to an issue. Physical factors that contribute to issues
include dams, flow velocity (the speed at which water flows in a stream), and concretelined channels. These changes have important implications for stream ecology. For
example, changes to flow velocity and sediment transport can directly disrupt the channel
bottom conditions that organisms depend on to find food and shelter (benthic substrate)
and disrupts their overall life cycle. Chemical factors include high concentrations of
bacteria that can indicate the presence of organisms that make people sick or high
concentrations of chlorides that are lethal to fish.
2) Goals – A specific long-term result intended to be achieved that will help move
towards improved regional water quality. Achieving goals will solve or work towards
solving issues within the watershed. Goals can be quantitative or qualitative or both.
Most quantitative goals also have a corresponding qualitative goal. An example of a
quantitative goal is to reduce the total fecal coliform bacteria load to the Menomonee
River watershed by 42%. An example of a corresponding qualitative goal is to increase
water-based recreational opportunities by reducing the risk of people getting sick when
they recreate in the river.
The baseline goals for this plan were defined in the RWQMPU and confirmed as the
baseline goals, or starting point, for this WRP by the SWWT Executive Steering Council.
The baseline goals related to water quality improvements were established by the
RWQMPU in an attempt to meet the applicable fishable/swimmable water quality use
objectives and the associated water quality standards or guidelines. The baseline habitat
improvement goals for the WRP were also based on the RWQMPU and were
subsequently expanded by SEWRPC’s Memorandum Report No. 194 (Appendix 4A).

7-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

As the WRP is implemented, the goals can be adapted and modified at any time by the
SWWT to adjust for new water quality standards or new information.
3) Targets – Short-term goals or steps required to reach the long-term goals. In order
to break down the long-term goals into more manageable pieces, targets were established.
Establishing targets helps determine the specific steps needed to achieve a goal and
facilitates the development of measures to track progress. The targets were developed
from the management measures selected from above or from Chapter 6. An example of a
target is to expand riparian buffer widths to a minimum of 75 feet.
4) Actions – Activities or projects needed to achieve the targets and address, or start
addressing, the issues. Actions can include data gathering, research, or actually
removing a concrete-lined channel. The actions included in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 were
identified as those that can make the most positive impact on habitat and water quality
(focusing on fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus reduction) in the Menomonee River
watershed. They are not the only actions that can or should be taken. Implementing
these actions should move water quality and habitat improvement towards meeting the
targets and achieving the goals. An action, or a group of actions, was developed for each
of the management measures that were selected to more clearly define activities needed
to implement the management measures.
5) Measures – A way to monitor progress of an action or set of actions towards
achieving a specific target. Measures can be used to determine if the actions are being
implemented and whether or not they are improving water quality or habitat. Examples
of measures include: increased number of days that one can recreate in a stream, miles of
buffers established, length of concrete channel removed, fish population diversity, and
concentrations of pollutants. The progress for some actions, such as the length of
concrete removed, can be determined as soon as they are implemented. However, it may
take several years or even decades to be able to measure progress towards achieving
certain water quality or habitat improvements.
6) Evaluate Results – Determine what was accomplished by the actions, make
adjustments, and continue process. An evaluation of the measures will show if the
actions should be continued, used elsewhere, modified, or discontinued.
7) Primary Land Use the Action Addresses – Appropriate area(s) where the actions
would be applied. Some actions are land use-specific, such as manure storage for
agricultural operations. Some are simply best suited to be applied to certain land uses,
such as pet litter management in residential and parkland areas. This column provides
guidance on where the actions would be most effective at improving water quality. A
bullet in the column indicates the primary land use type(s) that the action addresses.
Most of the actions that address habitat improvement can be applied regardless of the
land use type. Therefore, this column was not included in Tables 7-2 and 7-3.
8) Responsible and/or Participating Organization – Organization(s) that will lead the
action and/or participate in the implementation of the activity. One organization will
need to lead each activity to establish an ultimate decision maker and determine who will
be accountable for implementing the action. When appropriate, other organizations can
be identified as team members to help develop and implement the activity. The
organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate in the implementation of the
7-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

action. The lead organization should be determined by a process established by the
SWWT.
9) Relative Cost – Approximation of an action’s cost. The relative cost is provided to
give the reader a sense of how expensive an action might be to implement throughout the
watershed. There are many variables that impact the cost of an activity, including the
level of implementation or the size of the project, whether land needs to be purchased, the
location and condition of the land, and many other factors. Therefore, the information
provided in the tables should be used as a guide only. For purposes of the tables, the
following categories are defined as a total watershed cost for the action:

Low = cost less than or equal to $500,000

Medium = more than $500,000 but less than $2,000,000

High = cost greater than or equal to $2,000,000

10) Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority – Location and
prioritization of where actions should be implemented. For each assessment point
area or location within the watershed, a priority for each action was assigned based on
information available to the technical team and SEWRPC, and engineering judgment.
The priority for each action is presented by assessment point area on Tables 7-1 through
7-4. The information included model results, such as pollutant load per acre and
percentage of unknown fecal bacteria attributed to the assessment point area, land use,
whether there was an associated project underway, or where the action fit within the
tiered approach developed by the Habitat Subcommittee that focuses on reconnecting
waterways to Lake Michigan (described in Appendix 4A of Chapter 4). The data used
for the priority assignments are provided in the footnotes of the tables. These priorities
are provided as a guide and can be modified by the WAT as the implementation process
moves forward and as new information is gathered and analyzed.
11) Potential Contribution toward Achieving Watershed Target and Goal – How much
progress towards achieving the target or goal can be attributed to the action. Each
action identified has the potential to contribute towards improved water quality and/or
habitat in the watershed. Some actions have the potential to make a bigger impact than
others. Some actions directly impact water quality, such as reducing bacterial sources.
Others have an indirect impact, such as expanding a water quality monitoring program.
During the development of the 2020 FP and the RWQMPU, some of the actions that
directly impact water quality were assigned specific pollutant load reductions and some
were not. There are several reasons why some actions were not assigned specific
reductions. One reason is the impact from the action is highly variable depending on the
site where it is applied. Another reason is the action relates to monitoring or data
collection, which will be used to fill data gaps and assist with decision making, and
therefore indirectly impacts water quality or habitat improvement. This information is
provided as a guide and can be modified by the WAT as the implementation process
moves forward and as new information is gathered and analyzed.
What will achieving the identified goals accomplish? Achieving the goals will
significantly reduce the quantity (load) and concentrations of pollutants in the streams
and improve habitat in the watershed. However, all water quality standards as they exist
7-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

in 2009 are not anticipated to be met under all circumstances – even if all
recommendations from the RWQMPU are implemented and the goals are met. It is
important to point out that the actions identified in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 are only a
subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. Information regarding anticipated water
quality improvements based on full implementation of the RWQMPU is provided in
Chapters 4 and 6 and discussed briefly below.
Fecal Coliform
Implementation of all actions identified in the RWQMPU recommended plan will result
in significant improvement in fecal coliform concentrations, in general, even though
anticipated water quality conditions for about half assessment point areas fall short of
meeting water quality standards. However, this reduction and the focus on removing
human sources of bacteria would reduce the risk of getting sick from contacting the
water. For the Menomonee River watershed, the anticipated overall load reduction is
42%. This will increase compliance with the geometric mean standard during the
swimming season (May – September) by 14 days in the lower reach of the mainstem.
This reduction will allow progress towards any future bacterial standard that may use a
different measure than fecal coliform bacteria.
Habitat
Achieving the habitat goals of meeting the fishable and swimmable standards will
improve water quality and hydrology to the point where the watershed can sustain a
natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses such as fishing, kayaking,
bird watching, and any other recreational activity that would be enhanced by improved
water quality and aquatic / riparian habitat. The types of fish and aquatic life that will be
present will depend on many factors that will be influenced by the decisions made
throughout the implementation of the WRP. The Menomonee River watershed habitatbased assessment points are identified in Figure 7-2. Appendix 7A includes a discussion
of planning considerations for improved habitat and biodiversity.
Phosphorus
Implementing the actions to address phosphorus will result in a significant reduction in
nutrient loading within the watershed. This will directly reduce the occurrence of algae
and the loading of nutrients to the Milwaukee Estuary and Lake Michigan. The
impending water quality standard scheduled to take effect in 2010 is anticipated to be met
on a yearly average in most assessment point areas following implementation of these
activities. An additional action that should be researched and evaluated is finding an
alternative to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water. The actions noted are
anticipated to bring most of the assessment point areas into compliance with the
impending standard of 0.075 mg/L on a yearly average basis.
7.2.1 Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria (Table 7-1)
The presence of fecal coliform bacteria is an indicator of potential pathogens that can make
people sick. High levels of fecal coliforms (and the pathogens they may indicate) are a threat to
the health of anyone who comes in contact with the water. The biggest risk to public health
occurs when the human fecal coliform is present. Higher concentrations of fecal coliforms are
normally found in streams during and after storms. Sources include the following:
7-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Unknown sanitary sewer cross-connections to storm sewers (unknown because the exact
reasons are unknown for the wide-spread and in some cases, very high levels of bacteria
found in storm sewers), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), and failing septic systems

Runoff impacted with droppings from pets, seagulls, geese and other wildlife

Runoff impacted by livestock and manure spreading operations in agricultural areas

The WRP modeled fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator of waterborne bacteria and related
public health risks. Fecal coliform was used because it is consistent with Wisconsin’s standard
for in-stream conditions (see Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources [NR] 102 Water Quality
Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters). Also, most of the available bacteria/public health data
collected from waterways within the Menomonee River watershed are based on fecal coliform
bacteria. One of the major drawbacks of relying on fecal coliform as an indicator of human
sewage is that fecal coliform bacteria are found in most warm-blooded animals 3. The presence of
fecal coliform bacteria itself neither provides any information on the source of the bacteria nor
the origin of the bacteria; the presence of fecal coliform bacteria does not specifically indicate
human sewage. One of this WRP’s Foundation Targets is to identify unknown sources of
bacteria as well as to disconnect these sources. Considering the limitations identified above, this
WRP acknowledges that that future indicators of waterborne bacteria and the related public
health risk will likely be based upon more effective measures of human risk and not based on
fecal coliform bacteria.
It is important to note that while the indicator organism will likely change, this WRP’s focus on
identifying and disconnecting illicit connections is still relevant. Illicit connections cause human
sewage contamination and present a direct risk to human health. An effective indicator organism
should be directly linked to illicit connections and not indicate the presence of waste from other
sources like waterfowl and pet litter. Human-specific strains of Bacteroides, with a specific
human genetic marker, have enabled researchers to differentiate between human and non-human
sources of sewage. 4 Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), in
collaboration with MMSD and the Milwaukee Riverkeepers, have used the Bacteroides genetic
marker to investigate sewage in stormwater outfalls. In some cases, specialized dye testing was
used to confirm the results; Bacteroides has shown promise as an effective and specific indicator
of human sewage. This WRP supports additional research to further refine Bacteroides use as an
indicator of human sewage contamination and the use of the latest technologies to detect human
sources. The WRP also supports an expanded monitoring program for Bacteroides throughout
the watershed to ensure a baseline is established and future evaluations can occur.

3

Bower, P.A., Scopel, C.O., Jensen, E.T., Depas, M.M. & McLellan, S.L. 2005. Detection of genetic markers of
fecal indicator bacteria in Lake Michigan and determination of their relationship to Escherichia coli densities using
standard microbiological methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71(12): 8305-8313.
4
Ibid

7-11

FIGURE 7-2
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHED
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Table 7-1 presents the identified actions and associated information to address public
health/bacteria. Implementing these actions will result in significant improvement in fecal
coliform concentrations, thereby reducing the risk of getting sick when contacting the water
during recreational activities. However, water quality standards as of 2009 are not anticipated to
be met in about half of the assessment point areas – even if all of the activities recommended in
the RWQMPU were implemented and the RWQMPU goals were met. The actions identified in
Table 7-1 are only a subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. Therefore, implementing only
the actions in Table 7-1 will likely not reach the goals. In order to reach the water quality
standards as of 2009 in all areas of the watershed every day of the year, the amount of fecal
coliform entering the streams would need to be reduced by over 90%.

7-13

Table 7-1: Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria
Menomonee River Watershed
Focus Area: Public Health/Bacteria
Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015
Issue: Risk of getting sick if you swim in or otherwise contact the water
Goal: Greater water-based recreational opportunities
SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Pollutant load reduction of fecal coliform bacteria for entire watershed by year 2020 = 42%
What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Significant reduction in total fecal coliform; reduced risk of getting sick; minimal improvement to meeting 2009 water quality standards
B

E

2. Increase recreational
use of watershed (was not
an action ranked in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)

3. Reduce bacteria sources
from land-based activities
(actions were ranked
medium to high in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)

MN-3

MN-4

MN-5

MN-8

MN-9

MN-10

MN-11

MN-12

MN-13

MN-14

MN-15

MN-16

MN-17

MN-18

Menomonee RiverUpper (a)

West Branch
Menomonee River

Willow Creek

Menomonee RiverUpper (b)

Nor-X Channel

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Menomonee RiverUpper (c)

Little Menomonee
Creek

Little Menomonee
River

Menomonee RiverUpper (d)

Underwood CreekUpper

Underwood CreekLower

Menomonee RiverUpper (e)

Honey Creek

Menomonee RiverLower (a-b)

Menomonee RiverLower (c)

l

l

l

Municipalities and NGOs with
assistance from UWM GLWI
and MMSD

Low

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

BR

CR

CR

CR

AR

AR

BR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

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

1b. % of outfalls sampled

l

l

l

l

l

Municipalities and NGOs with
assistance from UWM GLWI
and MMSD

Medium

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

BR

CR

CR

CR

AR

AR

BR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

l

Municipalities and NGOs with
assistance from UWM GLWI
and MMSD

Low

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

BR

CR

CR

CR

AR

AR

BR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

l

Municipalities and NGOs with
assistance from UWM GLWI
and MMSD

Low

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

BR

CR

CR

CR

AR

AR

BR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

l

Municipalities and NGOs with
assistance from UWM GLWI
and MMSD

High
(Programs to detect illicit
connections
$2000 per outfall)

CR

CR

CR

CR

CR

BR

CR

CR

CR

AR

AR

BR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

l

SWWT

Low

1c. Determine ownership/owner
of outfalls that have dry weather
flows and/or human bacteria

1c. % of owners identified

1d. Initiate discussion w/ owner
of outfall to begin determining
corrective actions

1d. % of owners with
whom discussions have
been initiated

1e. Implement projects to
correct/remove/disconnect
unknown sources of bacteria

1e. % of sources
corrected

2a. Identify recreational and
body contact areas

2a. Stream miles of
watershed surveyed

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

2b. Stream miles suitable
for recreation/body
contact
2c. Stream miles restored
for public access,
recreational use or body
contact

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

C

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

SWWT

Low

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

SWWT

Low

3a. Number of stream
miles with 75 feet-wide
buffers or greater

l

3b. Develop focused programs
to assess the impacts of older
septic systems on water quality

3b. Number of septic
systems assessed

l

3c. Manage pet litter

3c. Number of
municipalities with
strengthened pet litter
programs

l

3d. Implement programs to
discourage unacceptably high
numbers of waterfowl from
congregating near water
features - identify areas and
take action to discourage
waterfowl feeding

3d. Number of areas
documented, and
successful
implementation of
programs to eliminate
feeding or other food
sources for waterfowl

l

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs
and SWWT

l

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs
and SWWT

l

l

l

l

Low
(Riparian Buffer
$940/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))
Low
($60 per inspection
$20,000 to replace mound
system)

A

A

MN-7

MN-2

North Branch
Menomonee

l

D

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)

MN-6

Institutional & Governmental

MN-1

Commercial

l

Manufacturing & Industrial

High Density Residential

1a. Number of stream
miles surveyed

A

Measures

Transportation

Low Density Residential

1. Identify unknown
sources of bacteria, and
correct/remove/ disconnect
them (was high priority in
the SEWRPC Regional
Plan)

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority

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

Actions

Agriculture

Watershed Targets to be
Achieved by 2015

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

Primary Land Use the Action Addresses

F

Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving
Watershed Target &
Goal

10% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2015;
19% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

Fill data gaps - use
results to revise priorities
on geographic
concentration of Target 1
as data is developed

TBD

B

C

A

B

A

C

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

B

D

D

A

B

C

Site-specific

Site-specific

l

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs
and SWWT

Low

B

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

3% reduction in total
watershed loads

l

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs
and SWWT

Low
(Discourage Waterfowl
$189/acre (O&M))

B

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

Site-specific

l

l

B

E

3f. Number of
documented, successful
education programs
implemented

l

l

3g. Number of facilities
with at least 6 months of
manure storage capacity

3h. Prevent cattle from directly
accessing streams

3h. Percentage of stream
miles adjacent to
agricultural land with no
access to cattle

l

Counties, DATCP and WDNR

3i. Convert marginal crop land
to wetland or prairie

3i. Number of acres
converted.

l

Counties, WDNR, USDA and
Land Trusts

3j. Preserve highly productive
agriculture land

3j. Number of acres
preserved
3k. Number of facilities
with barnyard runoff
control measures

l

Ozaukee County Land
Conservation

l

3l. Maintain and preserve
Environmentally Significant
Lands

3l. Number of acres
purchased or preserved

l

4a. Continue MMSD water
quality monitoring program and
expand it to include biotic
sampling

4a. Continue existing
level of water quality
samples and parameters
tested for if justified after
annual review

4b. Continue involvement of
USGS in MMSD Corridor Study

4c. Coordinate WDNR sampling
and monitoring programs with
MMSD and USGS and integrate
NGO sampling efforts (such as
the efforts detailed in Target 1)

4b. Maintain existing
funding level for
continued USGS
involvement
4c. Overall data collection
program is integrated
through the USGS
corridor study or other
means. SWWT serves
as a vehicle to coordinate
and prioritize data
collection efforts.

Counties, DATCP, WDNR and
USDA

l

l

Not Applicable

Medium
(Manure Management
$650 (Cap.)
$42 (O&M))
Low
(Livestock Management Fencing
$2/ft (Cap.)
$0.10/ft (O&M))
Medium-High
($3000/acre (Cap.)
$650/acre (O&M))

MN-7

MN-8

MN-9

MN-10

MN-11

MN-12

MN-13

MN-14

MN-15

MN-16

MN-17

MN-18

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Menomonee RiverUpper (c)

Little Menomonee
Creek

Little Menomonee
River

Menomonee RiverUpper (d)

Underwood CreekUpper

Underwood CreekLower

Menomonee RiverUpper (e)

Honey Creek

Menomonee RiverLower (a-b)

Menomonee RiverLower (c)

Low

MN-6

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs
and SWWT

Nor-X Channel

l

MN-5

Manufacturing & Industrial

Transportation

l

Menomonee RiverUpper (b)

l

MN-4

l

WDNR and Municipalities

Willow Creek

l

l

MN-3

l

l

West Branch
Menomonee River

l

MN-2

l

High
(Parking Lot Sweeping
$3,400/acre (O&M)
Street Sweeping
$2,500/curb mile (Cap.)
$60/curb mile (O&M))

Menomonee RiverUpper (a)

l

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

Institutional & Governmental

Commercial

High Density Residential

l

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

C

3g. Provide 6 months manure
storage

3k. Control barnyard runoff

4. Continue overall water
quality monitoring to
assess progress towards
targets and goals (was high
priority in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

3e. Required reports and
estimates of TSS
reductions that will have
some benefit for bacteria

D

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)

MN-1

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

A

Measures

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority

North Branch
Menomonee

3. Reduce bacteria sources
from land-based activities
(actions were ranked
medium to high in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
(cont.)

Actions

Low Density Residential

Watershed Targets to be
Achieved by 2015

Agriculture

Primary Land Use the Action Addresses

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

D

A

B

B

D

A

D

C

F

Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving
Watershed Target &
Goal

18% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

Not measurable

A

C
<1% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

D

A

B

B

D

A

D

C

A

C

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Highly variable

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Counties, DATCP, WDNR and
USDA

Medium
($5000 each control measure
(Cap.))

D

A

B

B

D

A

D

C

A

C

MMSD, SEWRPC, WDNR, and
others such as land trusts

Highly variable

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

MMSD, WDNR, USGS and
NGO’s

Low

A

USGS

Low

A

MMSD, SEWRPC, WDNR,
USGS and NGO’s

Low

A

Site-specific

A

A

A

A

Fill data gaps

B

E

6a. Research development of
better indicator test than fecal
coliform to assess risks of
disease and determination of
human sources (was high
priority in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

6a. Progress on the
GLWI work on
bacteriodes and other test
parameters and
development of human
health water quality
standards by WDNR and
USEPA

Not Applicable

MN-12

MN-13

MN-14

MN-15

MN-16

MN-17

MN-18

Underwood CreekUpper

Underwood CreekLower

Menomonee RiverUpper (e)

Honey Creek

Menomonee RiverLower (a-b)

Menomonee RiverLower (c)

MN-9
Menomonee RiverUpper (c)

Menomonee RiverUpper (d)

MN-8
Butler Ditch

MN-11

MN-7
Lilly Creek

Little Menomonee
River

MN-6
Nor-X Channel

MN-10

MN-5
Menomonee RiverUpper (b)

Little Menomonee
Creek

MN-4

l

Willow Creek

l

MN-3

l

West Branch
Menomonee River

l

MN-2

l

Menomonee RiverUpper (a)

l

MN-1

l

D

North Branch
Menomonee

Manufacturing & Industrial

6. Development of better
human health risk
assessment to address
pathogens in stormwater
(was high priority in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)

Transportation

5a. Annual volume and
frequency of CSO and
SSO

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

5a. Continue adaptive
implementation of overflow
control program

Institutional & Governmental

5. Continue to achieve the
5 year LOP and continued
compliance with SSO and
CSO regulations; strive to
reduce overflow frequency
and volume (SSO was high
priority in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan and CSO
was medium priority)

Commercial

A

Measures

High Density Residential

Actions

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority

Low Density Residential

Watershed Targets to be
Achieved by 2015

Agriculture

Primary Land Use the Action Addresses

F

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)

WDNR, MMSD, and
Municipalities

High

AR

3% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

UWM GLWI, Marquette
University, MMSD,
Municipalities and NGOs

Medium

A

Fill data gaps

C

Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether bacteria loads to the streams are being reduced.
B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of this WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39.
C. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
E. Relative prioriity for Target 1 is based on the percentage of unknown sources estimated by the water quality model developed under the RWQMPU and verified with updated data for the WRP; priority

LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
C = Moderate Priority
D = Lowest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action

for agricultural practices under Target 3 is based on number of acres of agricultural land within the assessment point, with the higher priority assigned to the assessment points with the largest number of acres.
priority for Action 3b is based on the area served by onsite sewage disposal systems, with the higher priority assigned to the assessment points with the largest number of acres.
The letters following the assessment point area descriptions for the Upper and Lower Menomonee River mainstem indicate their relative locations. The "(a)" is the most upstream assessment point, followed by "(b)", and so on downstream.
F. Target 1: Approximately 60% - 75% of the urban nonpoint source fecal coliform loads from the subwatersheds were determined to be from unknown sources. Considering the potential challenges
associated with this work, the Regional Plan recommended 33% of these unknown sources be eliminated by 2020. Reducing 33% of these sources would reduce the total fecal coliform
load by 19%. If half of this load is reduced by 2015, approximately 10% of the load would be reduced. Action 3C: Based on 50% reduction in load to residential grass. Target 5: Goal from MMSD's 2020 Facilities Plan is 5-year LOP for SSO's
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.

Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving
Watershed Target &
Goal

Watershed Restoration Plan
7.2.2

Menomonee River

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

During the development of this WRP, the Science Committee formed a Habitat Subcommittee to
address habitat issues. The SEWRPC staff, with input and assistance from others on the Habitat
Subcommittee, developed Table 7-2, which identifies Priority Actions to address land-based
habitat issues resulting from human influences on runoff from the land surface. The targets
identified to address the issues are related to riparian corridors, hydrology, water quality and
quantity, and improved monitoring within the 18 assessment point areas within the Menomonee
River watershed. 5 See Appendix 4A of Chapter 4 for additional information.

5

SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194, Stream Habitat Conditionsand Biological Assessment of the
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009, January 2010.

7-17

Table 7-2: Priority Actions to Address Land-based Measures
Menomonee River Watershed
Focus Area: Habitat- Land Based Measures
Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015
Issue: Mitigating the human influences on runoff from the land surface to the stream system.
Goal: Habitat improvement through reduction of land based detrimental influences on the watershed.
SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Achievement of the fishable and swimmable standards.
What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Improvement of water quality and hydrology to sustain a natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses.
D

MN-2

MN-3

MN-4

MN-6

MN-10

MN-11

MN-7

MN-8

MN-13A

MN-13

MN-14A

MN-14

MN-16

MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

Menomonee River-Upper (a)

West Branch Menomonee River

Willow Creek

Nor-X Channel

Little Menomonee Creek

Little Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Dousman Ditch

Underwood Creek-Upper

South Branch Underwood Creek

Underwood Creek-Lower

Honey Creek

Menomonee River-Upper (b)

Menomonee River-Upper (c)

Menomonee River-Upper (d)

Menomonee River-Lower (a)

Menomonee River-Lower (b)

Menomonee River-Lower (c)

Menomonee River-Lower (d)

Medium

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

High
(Road Salt Reduction
$35/lane mile (Cap.)
$105/lane mile (O&M))

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

MN-19

MN-1
North Branch Menomonee

E

Mainstem Reaches &
Subwatersheds

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

C

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

1a. Evaluate existing road salt
reduction programs

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

2. Reduce water quality and
quantity impacts using
green infrastructure

2a. Implement green infrastructure to
re-establish more natural hydrology,
reduce runoff and improve water
quality (continue and expand current
efforts; e.g. Green Milwaukee and
MMSD's green infrastructure plan)

2a. Number of acres with reduced
impervious area; volume of runoff
reduced; improved flashiness index;
improved public safety from reduced
flow velocities; improved water quality
all year long

3. Reduce water quality and
quantity impacts from
stormwater outfalls,
nonpoint runoff and sewer
overflows

3a. Provide adequate conveyence and
storage volume through traditional
(detention and infiltration basins) and
innovative techniques (bio-infiltration,
green infrastructure, etc.) (continue
and expand current efforts)

4 Reduce localized erosion
at stormwater outfall pipes
and other nonpoint runoff
locations

4a. Implement measures to reduce
localized erosion and physically modify
the most active outfalls (i.e. those with
the greatest effect on instream
physical conditions)

5. Expand riparian buffer
width to a minimum of 75
feet

5b. Implement management activities
to promote restoration.

5c. Conduct additional surveys to
detemine riparian buffer widths not yet
inventoried.

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

1a. Obtain water quality and
WDNR, MMSD, and
biological data on stream reaches
that have had the benefit of reduced Municipalities including Counties
salt usage
1b. Locate stream reaches that have
high salt concentrations and target
WDNR, MMSD, Municipalities
them for pilot programs; ultimate
including Counties, and WisDOT
measure is reduced chloride in
streams

1c. Implement road salt reduction
program education

5a. Use of public lands or purchase of
lands (see Maps 9 and 13 in SEWRPC
Memorandum Report No. 194 in
Appendix 4A of the WRP) through
donation, grants, fee simple purchase,
or acqusition of conservation
easement.

Riparian
Corridors

A

1c. Educate private development
owners, contractors, operators,
municipalities and the public on use
of salt on driveways, parking lots and
other areas; ultimate measure is
reduced chloride in streams

Water Quality
and Quantity

Water Quality
and Quantity

1b. Implement new pilot road salt
reduction programs

Measures

B

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)

WDNR, MMSD, Municipalities
including Counties, WisDOT,
Private Development Owners,
Contractors

Low

A

WDNR, MMSD, and
Municipalities

High
(Infiltration (Residential)
$22,000/acre (Cap.)
$1,100/acre (O&M)
Infiltration (Industrial)
$110,000/acre (Cap.)
$5,300/acre (O&M))

A

3a. Number of acres with reduced
impervious area; reduced peak flows;
improved flashiness index; improved
public safety from reduced flow
velocities, improved water quality all
year long, and annual control of
sewer overflows

WDNR, MMSD, and
Municipalities

High
(Infiltration (Residential)
$22,000/acre (Cap.)
$1,100/acre (O&M)
Infiltration (Industrial)
$110,000/acre (Cap.)
$5,300/acre (O&M))

A

4a. Number of flow deflectors
installed, pipes cut back from stream
bank, linear feet of bank stabilized, or
amount of land purchased to provide
bio-infiltration

WDNR, MMSD, and
Municipalities

Medium-High

A

5a. Stream miles of buffer width 75
feet or greater

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
WDNR, and MMSD

Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))

A

5b. Tons of historic fill and/or trash
removed

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
Universities, WDNR, and MMSD

Medium

A

5b. Area of exotic invasive species
removed

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
Universities, WDNR, and MMSD

Low

A

5b. Area of native wetland or upland
reconstructed; number of native
species restored; diversity of native
hardwoods or shrubs

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
Universities, WDNR, and MMSD

Low-Medium
($4000/acre (Cap.)
$773/acre (O&M))

A

Municipalities, SWWT,
SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs
Universities, and MMSD

Low

B

5c. Stream miles inventoried and
area of potential buffer identified

MN-2

MN-3

MN-4

MN-6

MN-10

MN-11

MN-7

MN-8

MN-13A

MN-13

MN-14A

MN-14

MN-16

MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

Menomonee River-Upper (a)

West Branch Menomonee River

Willow Creek

Nor-X Channel

Little Menomonee Creek

Little Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Dousman Ditch

Underwood Creek-Upper

South Branch Underwood Creek

Underwood Creek-Lower

Honey Creek

Menomonee River-Upper (b)

Menomonee River-Upper (c)

Menomonee River-Upper (d)

Menomonee River-Lower (a)

Menomonee River-Lower (b)

Menomonee River-Lower (c)

E

MN-1
North Branch Menomonee

D

MN-19

Mainstem Reaches &
Subwatersheds

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

6. Expand riparian buffer
continuity

Riparian
Corridors

7. Protect high quality areas
or environmentally sensitive
lands

Hydrology

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
WDNR, and MMSD

Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))

A

6b. Implement management activities
to promote restoration.

6b. Number of stream channel
crossings and/or impediments to flow
removed and/or retrofitted to restore
Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
continuity of riparian buffers (e.g.,
Universities, WDNR, and MMSD
miles of non-essential roads adjacent
to streams removed)

Medium

A

6c. Implement management activities
to promote recreation.

6c. Miles of recreational trails created
for public access; number of locations
Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
providing public access to streams;
Universities, WDNR, and MMSD
miles of stream suitable for
recreational use or body contact

Medium

A

7a. Conduct additional surveys to
inventory riparian buffer widths and
environmentally sensitive lands

7a. Stream miles inventoried and
area of potential buffer identified

Municipalities, SWWT,
SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs
Universities, and MMSD

Low

B

7b. Purchase of lands to expand
buffers within the SEWRPC-delineated
Primary and Secondary Environmental
Corridors, especially along the
mainstem and tributary stream courses

7b. Stream miles or area of land
protected

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
WDNR, and MMSD

High

A

7c. Discourage any additional
development within the floodplain (e.g.,
consistent and effective application of
wetland permits, regulations).

7c. Continued enforcement of local
zoning ordinances and, where
applicable, ordinance revisions to
require mitigative compensation for
filling in the floodplain

Municipalities, Counties

Low

A

8a. Implement stormwater
management practices at the
subwatershed level

8a. Reduced flashiness is the
definitive measure. Others include
number of acres with reduced
impervious area; volume of runoff
reduced; improved flashiness index;
improved public safety from reduced
flow velocities. The number of actions
MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities,
that work towards restoring natural
Counties, WisDOT and Private
hydrology and reduce impervious
Development Owners
area can be measured to indicate
progress and include: area of
regenerative stormwater practices
installed, area of permeable paving
materials installed, acres of wetland
and upland restored, area of lowimpact development.

High
(Wet Detention
$0.37/cu ft (Cap.)
$0.02/cu ft (O&M)
Stormwater Treatment
$32,500/acre (Cap.)
$3,200/acre (O&M))

AR

8b. Implement stormwater
management practices at the
neighborhood level

8b. Reduced flashiness is the
definitive measure. Others include
number of acres with reduced
impervious area; volume of runoff
reduced; improved flashiness index;
improved public safety from reduced
flow velocities. The number of actions MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities,
that work towards restoring natural
Counties, WisDOT and Private
Development Owners
hydrology and reduce impervious
area can be measured to indicate
progress and include: number of rain
gardens or rainbarrels installed,
downspouts disconnected, green
roofs and other stormwater
management practices installed.

Medium
(Rain Garden
$1000 (Cap.) / $50 (O&M)
Rain Barrel
$50 (Cap.) / $3 (O&M)
Downspout Disconnect
$50 each (Cap.))

A

A

Actions

Measures

6a. Use of public lands or purchase of
lands (see Maps 9 and 13 in SEWRPC
Memorandum Report No. 194 in
Appendix 4A of the WRP) through
donation, grants, fee simple purchase,
or acqusition of conservation
easement.

6a. Stream miles of continuous buffer
widths of 75 feet or greater

8. Moderate flow regimes to
decrease flashiness

B

Menomonee River-Lower (d)

C

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)

D

MN-2

MN-3

MN-4

MN-6

MN-10

MN-11

MN-7

MN-8

MN-13A

MN-13

MN-14A

MN-14

MN-16

MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

Menomonee River-Upper (a)

West Branch Menomonee River

Willow Creek

Nor-X Channel

Little Menomonee Creek

Little Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Dousman Ditch

Underwood Creek-Upper

South Branch Underwood Creek

Underwood Creek-Lower

Honey Creek

Menomonee River-Upper (b)

Menomonee River-Upper (c)

Menomonee River-Upper (d)

Menomonee River-Lower (a)

Menomonee River-Lower (b)

Menomonee River-Lower (c)

Menomonee River-Lower (d)

A

A

A

A

MN-19

MN-1
North Branch Menomonee

E

Mainstem Reaches &
Subwatersheds

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

C

Habitat Dimension

Hydrology

Monitoring
and
Information

Watershed Targets

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)

8c. Maintain stormwater management
practices at all levels

8c. Reduced flashiness is the
definitive measure. Others include
number of acres with reduced
impervious area; volume of runoff
reduced; improved flashiness index;
improved public safety from reduced
flow velocities. The number of
stormwater management practices
inspected and maintained can be
measured to indicate progress.

MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities,
Counties, WisDOT and Private
Development Owners

Low - Medium

AR

8d. Restore floodplain connectivity with
the stream system

8d. Reduced flashiness is the
definitive measure. Miles of stream
connected with the floodplain can be
measured to indicate progress.

MMSD, WDNR, NGOs,
Municipalities, Counties

Medium-High

A

9a. Continue maintenance of existing
physical, chemical, and biological
monitoring stations and develop new
monitoring sites (including wildlife
monitoring) in cooperation with citizen
and other monitoring programs and
share the knowledge with stakeholders

9a. Number of stations established;
increases in the biological database;
and data analysis and interpretation
efforts continued or increased

Universities, MMSD, WDNR,
USGS, Municipalities and NGOs

Low-Medium

A

9b. Develop wildlife habitat restoration
plan

9b. Plan developed to restore wildlife
habitat

Universities, MMSD, WDNR,
SEWRPC, USGS,
Municipalities, and NGOs

Medium

A (priority for specific assessment points to be determined by habitat restoration plan)

9c. Implement storm drain stenciling
and programs to educate public how to
dispose of wastes properly

9c. Number of storm drains stenciled,
Universities, MMSD, WDNR,
number of informational programs
USGS, Municipalities and NGOs
developed or workshops held

Low

C

C

C

C

B

A

A

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

C

C

B

9d. Awareness programming for nonnative invasive species

9d. Number of informational
programs developed or workshops
held

Low

C

C

C

C

B

A

A

C

C

A

A

A

A

A

C

C

B

A

A

A

A

Actions

Measures

8. Moderate flow regimes to
decrease flashiness
(Continued)

A

B

9. Continue and expand
monitoring and
informational programming

Universities, MMSD, WDNR,
USGS, Municipalities and NGOs

Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.

A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action

C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
D. The letters following the assessment point area descriptions for the Upper and Lower Menomonee River mainstem indicate their relative locations. The "(a)" is the most upstream assessment point, followed by "(b)", and so on downstream.
E. This assessment point area is associated with the Menomonee River within the estuary. While not included within the pollutant loading and water quality analysis for the WRP, this area is incorporated in the habitat assessment conducted for the Menomonee River watershed.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.

Watershed Restoration Plan
7.2.3

Menomonee River

Priority Actions to Address Instream-based Habitat (Table 7-3)

The Habitat Subcommittee also developed Table 7-3, which identifies Priority Actions to address
instream-based habitat issues resulting from human influences on instream fishery habitat and
water quality. The targets identified to address the issues are related to aquatic organism
passage, aquatic habitat, aquatic organisms and improved monitoring, recreation, and aesthetics. 6
See Appendix 4A of Chapter 4 for additional information.

6

Ibid.

7-21

Table 7-3: Priority Actions to Address Instream-based Measures
Menomonee River Watershed
Focus Area: Habitat- Instream Based Measures
Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015
Issue: Mitigating the human influences on instream fishery habitat and water quality.
Goal: Habitat improvement through reduction of instream based detrimental influences throughout the stream system.
SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Achievement of the fishable and swimmable standards.
What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Improvement of water quality and habitat to sustain a natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses.

Aquatic
Organism
Passage

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

Aquatic Habitat

MN-10

MN-11

MN-7

MN-8

MN-13A

MN-13

MN-14A

MN-14

MN-16

MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

Little Menomonee Creek

Little Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Dousman Ditch

Underwood Creek-Upper

South Branch Underwood Creek

Underwood Creek-Lower

Honey Creek

Menomonee River-Upper (b)

Menomonee River-Upper (c)

Menomonee River-Upper (d)

Menomonee River-Lower (a)

Menomonee River-Lower (b)

Menomonee River-Lower (c)

E

MN-6
Nor-X Channel

MN-19

MN-4
Willow Creek

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Menomonee River-Lower (d)

MN-3

1a. Stream miles of concrete
removed, number of native species
present (see Appendix 4A for
biological indicators)

West Branch Menomonee River

1a. Remove concrete within the
lower reaches of the mainstem

B
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

MN-2

Measures

A

High
($2,000 - $4,200/linear foot (Cap.))

1b. Develop plans for removal
and/or retrofitting of five lowgradient structures on the North
Menomonee River Parkway
between Swan Boulevard and
Harmonee Avenue and
implement the plans

1b. Number of structures removed
or retrofitted, number of native
species present (see Appendix 4A
for biological indicators)

1c. Develop plans for removal
of additional obstructions on the
mainstem or tributaries and
implement the plans

1c. Number of structures (e.g., drop
structures and bridges) removed or
retrofitted, number of native species
present (see Appendix 4A for
biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

1d. Develop detailed
assesments to expand passage
restoration efforts beyond the
mainstem to the tributaries,
prioritze them, and implement
them

1d. Stream miles of concrete
removed, number of drop structures
eliminated, miles of enclosed
channel daylighted or retrofitted,
number of bridge crossings
retrofitted, and channel restored,
number of Tributary miles connected
to mainstem, number of native
species present (see Appendix 4A
for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

2a. Stream miles of habitat
protected

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

A

Medium-High
(Dam Abandonment and
Restoration Plan
$25,000/dam (Cap.) for drop
structure removal)

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

Medium-High

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

2b. Stream miles of habitat created
or improved, number of native
species present (see Appendix 4A
for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Medium - High

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

2c. Restore connectivity with
floodplain and recreate a more
natural meandering stream (to
be undertaken simultaneously
with 2a) to provide for the life
history of fish and aquatic
organisms (rearing, feeding,
breeding, and refuge areas)

2c. Number of miles connected and
functional as fish and aquatic
organism habitat, number of native
species present (see Appendix 4A
for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

High

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

2d. Protect excessively eroding
streambanks or streambeds,
especially where structures
such as bridge abutments and
buildings are threatened

2d. Miles of streambanks and
streambeds stabilized; reduction in
flow velocity

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Medium - High

2e. Maintain water quality
conditions conducive to a
successful and sustainable
fishery

2e. Thermal regime, oxygen
concentrations, turbidity, chlorides,
etc.

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Medium

2a. Protect and expand existing
highest quality remaining fishery
and aquatic habitat (see
Appendix 4A) (includes
reducing flow velocities and
addressing localized sediment
issues)
2b. Provide instream habitat
treatments including pool and
riffle structure, substrates,
vegetation or Cuyahoga habitat
underwater baskets

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

A

Actions

Menomonee River-Upper (a)

Watershed Targets

D

MN-1
Habitat Dimension

C
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the action
in the entire watershed; unit
costs shown if available)

Mainstem Reaches &
Subwatershed

North Branch Menomonee

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

MN-10

MN-11

MN-7

MN-8

MN-13A

MN-13

MN-14A

MN-14

MN-16

MN-5

MN-9

MN-12

MN-17

MN-17A

MN-18

Little Menomonee Creek

Little Menomonee River

Lilly Creek

Butler Ditch

Dousman Ditch

Underwood Creek-Upper

South Branch Underwood Creek

Underwood Creek-Lower

Honey Creek

Menomonee River-Upper (b)

Menomonee River-Upper (c)

Menomonee River-Upper (d)

Menomonee River-Lower (a)

Menomonee River-Lower (b)

Menomonee River-Lower (c)

Menomonee River-Lower (d)

E

MN-6
Nor-X Channel

3a. Protect and expand
remaining or existing highest
quality aquatic communities
(fisheres, macroinvertebrates,
mussels) (see Appendix 4A)

3a. Number, type, and life stages of
native species observed (see
Appendix 4A for biological
indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

3b. Reintroduce native species

3b. Number, type, and life stages of
native species observed (see
Appendix 4A for biological
indicators)

SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and
MMSD

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

3c Develop and implement
plans for control and removal of
non-native and invasive species

3c. Area cleared or tons removed of
non-native and invasive species

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Low-Medium

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

4a. Continue and expand
monitoring efforts and inventory
maintenance for fish passage,
habitat, aquatic organisms, and
water quality (especially metals
and polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) )

4a. Number of stations established
and conditions documented and
shared with stakeholders

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
Universities, USGS, SEWRPC,
WDNR and MMSD

Low-Medium

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

4b. Develop new monitoring
sites in cooperation with citizen
and other monitoring programs
and share the knowledge with
stakeholders

4b. Number of stations established
and numbers of informational
programs delivered

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs
Universities, USGS, SEWRPC,
WDNR and MMSD

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

5a. Inventory and maintian
existing recreational
opportunities

5a. Number of facilities maintained,
public access sites

Counties, NGO’s,
municipalities, WDNR, local
stakeholders

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

5b. Develop new and safe
recreation opportunities such as
linking water and land-based
trail systems

5b. Numbers of signs installed to
identify unsafe navigational hazards,
number of navigational hazards
removed or retrofitted, number of
new public access sites or facilites
created, number of informational
signs installed; miles of trails
established

Counties, NGO’s,
municipalities, WDNR, local
stakeholders

Low

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

5c. Maintain appropriate water
quality conditions and create
safe flow conditions conducive
to full contact recreation

5c. Number of safe recreation days,
number of areas identified as safe
for recreation, number of safe exits
constructed in confined channels

MMSD, WDNR, NGO’s,
municipalities, local
stakeholders

Medium

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

6a. Identify source locations
and continue and expand trash
and debris collection and
disposal

6a. Source locations identified,
improvement of trash accumulation
points in the watershed, and tons of
debris identified, collected, and
disposed of

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs
with WDNR and MMSD

Low-Medium
(Skimmer Boat
$1,000,000 for new boat
$150,000 (O&M)); Individual NGO
clean up efforts $35,000/yr/NGO

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Actions

Measures

A

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

C
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the action
in the entire watershed; unit
costs shown if available)

B

Footnotes: it is important to note that these instream actions and measures will require permits from the WDNR, municipalities, and/or Counties.
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance, cost for
concrete removal is based on average of recent MMSD project costs.
D. Relative prioriity based on 3-tiered approach, described in Appendix 4A, which emphasizes the mainstem, then tributaries, then high quality areas.
The letters following the assessment point area descriptions for the Upper and Lower Menomonee River mainstem indicate their relative locations. The "(a)" is the most upstream assessment point, followed by "(b)", and so on downstream.
E. This assessment point area is associated with the Menomonee River within the estuary. While not included within the pollutant loading and water quality analysis for the WRP, this area is incorporated in the habitat assessment conducted for the Menomonee River watershed.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.

LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action

MN-19

MN-4
Willow Creek

6. Continue removal of
trash

MN-3

Aesthetics

5. Improve recreational
opportunities (also see MR194 in Appendix 4A)

West Branch Menomonee River

Recreation

4. Continue monitoring and
informational programming

MN-2

Monitoring and
Information

3. Restore a sustainable
fishery and aquatic
community

D

Menomonee River-Upper (a)

Aquatic
Organisms

Watershed Targets

Mainstem Reaches &
Subwatershed

MN-1
Habitat Dimension

D

North Branch Menomonee

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Watershed Restoration Plan
7.2.4

Menomonee River

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

Excess phosphorus can lead to an increase in weed growth, which results in aesthetic impacts
and can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations at night, which is harmful to fish. When the
weeds die, they can produce noxious odors and also reduce the dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the water. Potential sources of phosphorus include the following:

Non-contact cooling water and any other discharge of treated drinking water (phosphorus
compounds) including, lawn watering, car washing and other outdoor activities that
utilize and discharge finished municipal water

Fertilizers

Sanitary sewer overflows

Eroding soil (phosphorus is naturally occurring nutrient that clings to soil particles)

Private onsite wastewater treatment systems

Manure spreading

Table 7-4 presents the identified actions and associated information to address nutrients/
phosphorus. As noted above in Section 7.1, implementing these actions will result in significant
reduction in nutrient pollution of the watershed and may bring most assessment point areas in
line with the impending water quality standard.

7-24

Table 7-4: Priority Actions to Address Nutrients/Phosphorus
Menomonee River Watershed
Focus Area: Nutrients - Phosphorus
Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015
Issue: Nutrient impacts on the watershed and discharge of nutrients from the watershed to Lake Michigan
Goal: Reduction of nutrient loads and impacts on water quallty such as algae and Cladophera
SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Pollutant load reduction of phosphorus for entire watershed by year 2020 = 32% or 17,190 pounds per year reduction
What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Significant reduction in nutrient pollution of the watershed including algae reduction and reduction of nutrient discharges to the Milwaukee Estuary and Lake Michigan

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

MN-13

MN-14

MN-15

MN-16

MN-17

MN-18

Underwood CreekLower

Menomonee RiverUpper (e)

Honey Creek

Menomonee RiverLower (a-b)

Menomonee RiverLower (c)

MN-9
Menomonee RiverUpper (c)

Underwood CreekUpper

MN-8
Butler Ditch

MN-12

MN-7
Lilly Creek

Menomonee RiverUpper (d)

MN-6
Nor-X Channel

MN-11

MN-5
Menomnee RiverUpper (b)

Little Menomonee
River

MN-4
Willow Creek

MN-10

MN-3
West Branch
Menomonee River

Little Menomonee
Creek

MN-2

Responsible and/or
Participating Organization

WDNR, MMSD, and
Municipalities

High

RD

RD

RD

RD

RC

RB

RC

RB

RC

RD

RC

RB

RB

RB

RA

RA

RB

RA

9% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

A

Estimated 4% reduction
in total watershed loads
based on literature

C

1b. Required reports and
estimates of phosphorus
reductions associated
with TSS reduction

l

l

l

l

l

l

WDNR and Municipalities

1c. Reduce phosphorus loads
with State ban of phosphorus in
commercial fertilizers

1c. Required reports and
estimates of phosphorus
reductions

l

l

l

l

l

l

WDNR and Municipalities

Low

Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving
Watershed Target &
Goal

1% reduction in total
watershed loads

AR

Not Applicable

UWM GLWI, MMSD,
Municipalities, Industries,
Milwaukee 7, and NGOs

Medium

A

11% reduction in total
watershed loads (if
phosphorus from all
industrial noncontact
cooling water sources
eliminated) Alternative to
phosphorus compounds
would have regional,
national and global
impacts

3a. Number of stream
miles with 75 feet-wide
buffers or greater where
public ownership exists

All

Counties, Municipalities, NGOs,
SWWT

Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))

A

8% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020

4a. Continue existing
level of water quality
samples and parameters
tested for if justified after
annual review

Not Applicable

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGO’s

Low

A

Not Applicable

USGS

Low

A

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

2a. Progress on public
and private research in
the Milwaukee area on
development of better
technology

3. Reduce phosphorus
sources from land-based
activities (was high priority
in the SEWRPC Regional
Plan)

3a. Identify where public
ownership of land can serve as
a starting point to increase
riparian buffers

4a. Continue MMSD water
quality monitoring program and
expand it to include biotic
sampling

4c. Coordinate WDNR sampling
and monitoring programs with
MMSD and USGS and integrate
NGO sampling efforts (such as
the efforts detailed in Target 1)

E

Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)

Medium-High
(Parking Lot Sweeping
$3,400/acre (O&M)
Street Sweeping
$2,500/curb mile (Cap.)
$60/curb mile (O&M)
(Stormwater Treatment
$32,500/acre (Cap.)
$3,200/acre (O&M)))

4b. Continue involvement of
USGS in MMSD Corridor Study

Menomonee RiverUpper (a)

l

MN-1

l

D

North Branch
Menomonee

l

Manufacturing & Industrial

l

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands,
Woodlands, and Open Space

l

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority

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)

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

4. Continue overall water
quality monitoring to
assess progress towards
targets and goals (was
high priority in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)

l

B

Transportation

1a. Annual volume and
frequency of CSO and
SSO

Institutional & Governmental

A

Commercial

1a. Continue adaptive
implementation of CSO and
SSO overflow reduction
program

Measures

High Density Residential

Actions

Low Density Residential

Watershed Targets

Agriculture

Primary Land Use the Action Addresses

4b. Maintain existing
funding level for
continued USGS
involvement
4c. Overall data
collection program is
integrated through the
USGS corridor study or
other means. SWWT
serves as a vehicle to
coordinate and prioritize
data collection efforts.

Fill data gaps

Not Applicable

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGO’s

Low

Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of the WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39.
C. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
E. Relative prioriity for Actions 1b and 1c are based on the total nonpoint load per acre
The letters following the assessment point area descriptions for the Upper and Lower Menomonee River mainstem indicate their relative locations. The "(a)" is the most upstream assessment point, followed by "(b)", and so on downstream.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.

A

LEGEND
B = Next Highest Priority
C = Moderate Priority
D = Lowest Priority
R = Required by Law
U = Underway
Foundation Action

Watershed Restoration Plan
7.2.5

Menomonee River

Foundation Actions (Table 7-5)

Even after distilling the RWQMPU recommendations into the Priority Actions tables, the overall
consensus among the SWWT committees was that there were still too many actions. Therefore,
to provide further guidance on the next projects that should be implemented, the technical team
developed a Foundation Actions table (Table 7-5). The actions chosen for the Foundation
Actions table are considered to be the predecessor actions for all other recommended actions.
The idea is that these actions must be completed before the full benefits of other actions can be
realized and will be completed no matter what the final goals are for the watershed. For
example, the full benefits of in-stream habitat improvements upstream of Swan Boulevard can
never be fully realized until a better connection with Lake Michigan is created by removing the
five low-head structures downstream of Swan Boulevard and fish passage through the concretelined channel section is provided in the lower reaches of the Menomonee River.
As with the Priority Actions tables, the Foundation Actions table is meant to be used as a guide
for future actions and can be modified as new information is obtained and as projects are
implemented. Also, the table is not meant to exclude any recommendations from the
RWQMPU.

7-26

Table 7-5: Foundation Actions
Menomonee River Watershed

Watershed Targets to be Achieved by 2015

Actions

PUBLIC HEALTH/BACTERIA
1a. Conduct dry weather surveys to identify outfalls that have dry weather flows
1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples)
1. Identify unknown sources of bacteria, and correct/remove/disconnect them (was high priority in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)

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

2. Increase recreational use of watershed and public access (was not an action ranked in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

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
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)

3. Reduce bacteria sources from land-based activities (actions were ranked medium to high in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

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

HABITAT - LAND-BASED
1a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs
1. Reduce water quality impacts from nonpoint runoff (focus on chlorides)

1b. Implement new pilot road salt reduction programs
1c. Implement road salt reduction program education

2. Reduce water quality and quantity impacts using green infrastructure

2a. Implement green infrastructure to re-establish more natural hydrology, reduce runoff and improve water quality (continue and expand current efforts; e.g. Green Milwaukee and MMSD's
green infrastructure plan)

HABITAT - INSTREAM-BASED
1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the mainstem
1. Restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e.
Follow 3-Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Appendix 4A)

1b. Develop plans for removal 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

PHOSPHORUS
1a. Continue adaptive implementation of CSO and SSO overflow reduction program
1. Reduce phosphorus loads from regulated discharges (actions were ranked low to high in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)

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

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

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

This list is intended to highlight predecessor actions that need to be completed to realize the full potential of actions
listed in Tables 7-1 thru 7-4 and the actions recommended by the RWQMPU.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.

Watershed Restoration Plan
7.3

Menomonee River

Comments Received on Priority Actions Tables

Watershed Action Team meetings and Science Committee meetings were held in fall 2009 to
discuss ongoing development of the WRP for the Menomonee River watershed. Comments were
solicited from participants at the meeting and through the postal service, e-mail, and e-forum in
regards to the draft Priority Actions tables, which were called the draft Summary Matrix tables at
the time. The following sections are intended to outline the comments that were submitted
during the development of the Priority Actions tables (indicated in italics) and discuss how the
comments were addressed or why they were not addressed in the tables.
1) Metals and PAHs
Metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are not specifically addressed in the plans and
these two parameters are important impairments for fish and wildlife.
While metals and PAHs are not identified for special attention in the WRPs, they are expected to
be reduced through implementation of the Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management
requirements. In addition, it is expected that metals and PAHs will be reduced as a result of
other actions identified in the Priority Actions tables that reduce stormwater runoff. Because
metals and PAHs have not been a specific focus area, nor on the parameter list based on the
Science and Policy Committees and Executive Steering Council discussions, they have not been
modeled during this study. Some modeled parameters can be an indicator (such as turbidity) or
surrogate (such as total suspended solids [TSS]) of these pollutants, but additional data on these
pollutants have not been collected as part of this study. Specific reductions of these pollutants
can be measured and investigated in future studies.
Note that hazardous materials assessments should be considered during planning and
design of channel renovation and rehabilitation projects; some concrete channels overlay
contaminated soils.
It was suggested that the matrix include a monitoring recommendation to specifically address
TSS or PAHs/heavy metals. By collecting the relevant data, future plans will have the data
needed to address these important pollutants as well. This will facilitate future iterations of the
plan to address this better data. Another commenter asked whether polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) should also be considered and whether additional monitoring should be added to the
recommendations.
Awareness and education efforts related to automobile practices and use of transportationrelated chemicals such as antifreeze, motor oil, and fuel could be included and would also
benefit from future monitoring data.
These comments were addressed by adding metals and PAHs specifically in the monitoring and
information section of Table 7-3. There are also recommendations in the RWQMPU to maintain
and expand monitoring programs. As the implementation process moves forward, additional
data gaps will be identified and specific monitoring projects can be conducted to gather the
appropriate data.
2) Buffers
There are multiple benefits of buffers and other actions/facilities. Perhaps these are actions that
should be focused on first. These projects may be the most likely projects to receive funding.

7-28

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The use of buffers is addressed in many of the recommended actions. The inclusion of habitat
improvements related to land based activities is included in the Foundation Actions table (Table
7-5) and buffers are an element of this action.
3) Activity Champions
The SWWT could select one organization to champion each activity and verify if all other
participating organizations were identified in the matrix. There was a desire to have the tables
clearly indicate who will do what and how individuals and organizations can help.
Another suggestion was to organize the Summary Matrix tables by implementation group
(business/industry, agriculture, households, etc.). Large institutional stakeholders are
responsible for most of the actions on the tables, and it leaves off actions for smaller or
individual stakeholders.
The “Responsible and/or Participating Organization” column was included in the tables to
indicate which organizations might lead and/or participate in the activities. It will be the
responsibility of SWWT to determine which SWWT organizations should be involved and what
the roles and responsibilities of SWWT should be for each action. Also, the process of
implementing new actions is discussed in Chapter 8. This process includes the designation of a
lead organization for any new action.
4) Table Organization
The Summary Matrix (Priority Actions table) and the Foundation Actions table, in particular,
could end up causing actions that are not listed to be overlooked and this is not beneficial. It
was agreed that the plan will have to label the summaries with disclaimers warning that specific
actions are part of an overall plan.
The text and the Foundation Action table were revised to address the concern that WRP readers
might only focus on actions listed in the Foundation Action table. The concern was addressed by
clarifying these ‘foundation’ actions are simply predecessor actions that are required to realize
the full benefit of other actions intended to improve water quality or habitat within the
watershed. Note also that the actions included in the Priority Actions tables are suggestions to be
implemented between 2010 and 2015. These actions are a distillation of the recommended
actions presented in the RWQMPU, found in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50 and
discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of this WRP.
One suggestion was that the foundation elements be highlighted within the four focus area tables
rather than called out separately in an additional table.
The foundation actions were highlighted in the Priority Actions tables.
The importance of the Foundation Actions table (Table 7-5) to serve as a roadmap for the next
five years was highlighted, and it was suggested to refine the table now.
There was also a suggestion to combine or connect the cost and benefit columns to serve as an
additional measure.
This task was determined to be appropriate for the next level of planning and was not done as
part of the WRP.
Another suggestion was to reorganize the tables in the matrix to detail conditions and possible
actions for specific sections of each of the 18 major tributaries or sections (assessment point
7-29

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

areas) of the Menomonee River. This would be an additional table for each sub-watershed that
identifies conditions and possible actions for specific sections of each of the 18 major sections of
the Menomonee River and the feasibility of each action. Actions might include the reduction or
elimination of adverse impacts or possible improvements to the existing condition. Simplified
headings such as these could be used:

What’s there
o

Current condition of the watershed and water quality

o

Specific areas/conditions/issues of concern (e.g., fecal coliform)

o

Factors/uses/condition (parking lots, factories, concrete channels, etc) affecting
areas/issues of concern

Why do we care

What can be done

o

Possible actions to reduce or eliminate adverse impact (remove barrier, implement
best management practices)

o

Actions to improve existing condition (widen buffer, create recreation access)

Feasibility of action (cost, politics, efficacy)

This information can then be combined with other Menomonee tributary tables to show
connection to other subwatershed actions, cost effective coordination, implementation,
maintenance, and monitoring.
The consensus of the SWWT committees was to leave the tables organized the way they are.
This allows the reader to view multiple assessment point areas at one time. Much of the
information discussed above is included in the WRP chapters. Additional information is
contained in the RWQMPU. Some of the more detailed information mentioned above will be
gathered in the next phase of implementation when more detailed work plans are developed to
conduct specific projects. The more detailed data gathering is beyond the scope of the WRP.
Another suggestion indicated that it would be helpful to use photos, words, and images to shape
the vision and illustrate the goals to relate these efforts to how they will impact people's day-today lives. Additionally, a narrative, photos, and art would help to paint a vision for people of
what the stream might look like when targets/goals accomplished and would help get buy in.
The plan contains maps that depict streams within various contexts, including underground and
channelized streams and those that flow within naturalized channels. Maps that indicate the
locations of point sources, excessive erosion as well as other conditions are also included. Most
of the maps are provided in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4A.
5) Early Actions
The SWWT should identify and prioritize projects in the watershed that will be able to provide a
quick success. Implementing these projects first will maintain and build the momentum of the
Menomonee River WAT.
These actions can be determined from the overall action lists in Chapter 8.
6) Phosphorus
7-30

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The SWWT Policy Committee should look into alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to
drinking water. It was suggested the plan include other treatment and water re-use alternatives
instead of chemical solutions for dealing with a reduction in the use of phosphorus compounds
for the control of lead and copper in drinking water systems.
This is a foundation action. It is important to note that the programs and processes that are
utilized by water utilities are in response to regulatory requirements and successfully address a
significant public health issue.
7) Prioritization Process
Priority is a complex concept involving both an assessment of conditions and values related to
those conditions.
The initial versions of Tables 7-1 through 7-4 (Priority Actions tables) describe the greatest need
in terms of the technical analysis and current conditions and were revised based on input from
the WAT. These initial priority designations can guide the WAT and SWWT as they move
forward with implementation. The SWWT committees or chairs have the ability to add the value
component and adjust the prioritization accordingly. For example, intervention may be more
feasible in some places because of varying factors, opportunities, and synergies creating a
context for increasing or decreasing the level of priority for each item. Priorities may be revised
over time by the WAT.
Another suggestion indicated that it would be beneficial to generate a list that optimizes
available resources, leverages additional resources, and includes an analysis of visibility of
potential projects. Additionally, the prioritization of projects as opportunities arise should also
be considered.
This action should be discussed by the WAT in the next phase of implementation as discussed in
Chapter 8.
Comments also suggested a wider index for prioritization than just A or B. This could increase
clarity of priorities (such as using A, B, C, and D) that could differ across the watershed. One
comment suggested changing the word “priority” that appears in Column 7.
The prioritization was expanded in Tables 7-1 and 7-4 to include A through D. The
prioritization in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 remains limited to A and B due to the relatively high
prioritization attributed to habitat-based actions. After discussion with the Science Committee,
the consensus was to keep the word priority in the “Geographic Concentration of Action and
Relative Priority” column as it indicates a preference for where actions should be implemented
first. The prioritization can be revised in the future by the WAT.
8) Other Comments by Focus Area
Comments included changes to watershed targets including the refinement of associated actions,
measures, and prioritization. Specific comments are summarized below for each focus area and
are described based on their position in the matrix (action, measure, and priority).
1) Public Health/Bacteria
Action

Change identification of outfalls to include wet-weather flows in addition to dryweather flows.
7-31

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Text was revised in Table 7-1 to address this.

Include identification of unknown sources of bacteria to reflect identification of
human and non-human bacterial sources. This decision was based on a
discussion of whether the USEPA is going to emphasize human and non-human
sources.
Text added in Section 7.2.1 that discusses the issues with using fecal coliform
bacteria as an indicator organism and provides recommendations for future
actions regarding the identification of unknown sources.

Measure

Change fecal measure from load/acre to a measure of instream concentration and
number of warm-weather days above standard.
The fecal measures were modified to measure implementation progress, realizing
that the ultimate measure of progress is reduced loading to the watershed, reduced
instream concentrations, and increased number of days above the standards. The
measures can be revised in the future as desired by the WAT

Priority

Change MN-17 to same priority as MN-18 under target for identifying unknown
sources of bacteria. It was suggested that MN-17 be a high priority.
Text was revised in Table 7-1 to address this.

Change priority on reaches from Silver Spring downstream under target for
increasing recreational use. It was suggested that these reaches be a high
priority.
The priority for all reaches was changed to A (high priority). It is recommended
that the final priorities be set after survey data is obtained to determine where all
of the recreational areas are located within the watershed.

Change the table to include a description of each reach (MN-1 through MN-18).
The subwatershed associated with each assessment point was added to the tables.

Priority should be higher on those agricultural lands with animals/livestock
(suggest A priority) than those without (suggest B priority) if assessments or data
are available to make this differentiation.
The priorities were modified based on available information from SEWRPC.

Knowing how many persons are affected in each sub-watershed may help to
prioritize areas in the target for increased recreational use.
This can probably be determined with available information, but it was not done
as part of this WRP. It is recommended that this analysis be completed as part of
the implementation phase if deemed necessary.

2) Habitat
Action

7-32

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Add section between 1b and 1c to address ‘Identification of other mainstream
passage barriers’ in addition to the barriers identified in 1a and 1b for Aquatic
Organism Passage.
Added.

Add ‘Sediment and flow issues’ that can affect habitat for fish under Aquatic
Habitat target.
Added to action 2a.

Under target for Aquatic Habitat, address the riparian buffers in a way that will
inventory tree species and address the overhead canopy. Increased light
penetration could further the growth of reed canary grass and phragmites and
could prevent native hardwood regeneration. This could affect water
temperatures and food chains. Begin to establish a diversity of native hardwoods
and shrubs while keeping a balance with grassland areas.
Added “diversity of native hardwoods and shrubs” under measures.

Include mention of concerns for non-aquatic species to improve access to funding
opportunities. Data are lacking for many of the other species.
The focus of the WRP is on aquatic species. However, it is believed that much of
the work aimed at the aquatic species will address other non-aquatic species as
well, especially the riparian corridor recommendations.

Actions within the Menomonee River watershed may have positive effects on Lake
Michigan, which may lead to additional avenues for funding. Identify which
actions in the watershed will have the most direct impact on conditions in Lake
Michigan.
Many of the actions recommended in the WRP will have positive impacts on
Lake Michigan. Although direct impacts to Lake Michigan were not analyzed as
part of this WRP, text was added to Section 7.1.1 to discuss potential impacts to
the Milwaukee River Estuary Area of Concern. The Milwaukee River Estuary is
the area at the downstream end of the Menomonee River where the water level is
basically the same as Lake Michigan.

Create a ‘Biodiversity Vision’ where clear goals and objectives are provided for
the watershed with a measurement for progress. For example, target species can
be identified and goals set for habitat criteria, population size, and reproductive
success to establish viability metrics. Steps include: 1) Creating an Inventory and
Analyzing Trends, 2) Conducting a Landscape Ecology Assessment, 3) Identifying
Focal Species, 4) Developing Broad Objectives, and 5) Developing Watershed
Specific Recommendations and moving toward implementation.
This action should be discussed by the WAT in the next phase of implementation.

3) Phosphorus
Action

7-33

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Include buffers and other educational efforts aimed at golf courses to reduce
phosphorus sources from land based activities.
Buffers and public education are recommended actions in the WRP. Golf courses
were not specifically analyzed as part of the WRP. Specific areas where these
actions should be implemented will be determined as part of the implementation
phase.

9) Other Miscellaneous Comments

Hydrology -- Consider potential for a Waukesha diversion from Lake Michigan
with return flows of water through Underwood/Menomonee watershed.
The Executive Steering Committee determined that this issue should not be
analyzed as part of the WRP. Analyses of the potential impacts are being
conducted by others.

Monitoring -- The focus on monitoring needs could vary by assessment area,
depending on water quality, habitat conditions and land use.
Agree. This should be considered when developing the monitoring plans during
the implementation phase.

10) Goals
Another comment suggested that there be a measure of success on the overall goal to show how
well actions are accomplishing a goal. Another comment indicated that the region has a wellestablished framework for measuring water quality, including the MMSD H2OInfo tool, which is
considered valuable.
Implementation plans should include a monitoring component.
Monitoring is a recommended action included in the WRP.
11) Funding
Obtaining future funding and investment would be facilitated by developing a specific plan. The
use of mapping to identify problem areas would also improve chances for future funding.
The appendices in Chapter 4 contain numerous maps. Additional map files can be obtained
through SEWRPC and MMSD.

7-34

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 7A

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy
8.1

Introduction

The overall implementation strategy of the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is presented in
this chapter. The implementation strategy incorporates an “adaptive management” approach,
which is a systematic management approach that allows decisions to be modified and improved
over time based on results from previous decisions and/or new information. This approach can
be summarized by the phrase: Plan-Do-Check-Act. The terms in this phrase, for the purposes of
this WRP, are summarized below:
Plan – Identify actions to improve water quality and habitat in the Menomonee River watershed.
Do – Implement the identified actions.
Check – Monitor the incremental progress of the implemented actions toward achieving water
quality and habitat improvements.
Act – Evaluate the results, consider new information, and then modify the plan as necessary.
Actions that have been successful should be continued. Actions that did not produce the desired
outcome should be modified or eliminated. This starts the adaptive management process over
again.
This strategy, along with previous chapters in this WRP, can be used by the Southeastern
Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) to further develop an implementation plan for the
watershed. The specific portions of the WRP that will be the most useful for this purpose
include: Chapter 4, Appendix 4A, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 (especially Tables 7-1 through 7-5), and
the information provided in this chapter. The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission’s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) is
also a tremendous resource that can be used to help develop the plan.
As part of the “Plan” component under the Plan-Do-Check-Act approach, a phased approach for
implementation is recommended. As noted in Chapter 2, the recommended phasing strategy for
implementation of this WRP is as follows:
Phase 1- Completed and Committed Actions/Projects: The first phase in
implementing this WRP includes identifying relevant actions or projects that have been
recently completed and a recommendation to implement already committed projects and
programs. This phase represents recent progress and will continue approximately
through the year 2015.
This Phase is documented in Tables 8-1 and 8-2:
1) Completed actions are shown in Table 8-1. These are actions/projects that have
been completed subsequent to the completion of SEWRPC's RWQMPU at the
end of 2007.

8-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2) Actions that are underway are shown in Table 8-2. These are actions/projects that
are in the process of being completed at the time this report was being finalized
(March 2010)
Phase 2 – Implement Identified Foundation Actions and Other High Priority
Actions: The second phase of adaptive implementation of this WRP includes the
implementation of the foundation actions and the other high priority actions identified in
this WRP. This phase represents progress in the years 2010 to about 2015.
This phase is documented in Tables 8-3 and 8-4:
1) Actions that are being initiated are shown in Table 8-3. These are actions/projects
that are being initiated at the time this report was being finalized (March 2010).
2) Actions that are being considered by the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds
Trust, Inc. (SWWT) and other agencies and those that are recommended in this
WRP are shown in Table 8-4.
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 chapter because the details of this phase will
depend upon the results of Phase 1 and 2.
Phase 4 – Enhanced Level of Controls: The 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.

8-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

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 those are the existing standards, site-specific standards, or future
changes in water quality standards. This phase would likely occur after 2020.
8.2

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Actions

The actions identified under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the implementation strategy are provided in
the tables below. For each table, the Focus Area that each action is intended to address is
provided. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, the Focus Areas were developed with the SWWT
committees in order to focus the WRP on three main parameters. The parameters include public
health/bacteria, habitat (designated as either land-based or instream-based) and aesthetics, and
nutrients/phosphorus. The participants that have either worked on the action, are currently
working on the action, or are understood to work on the action in the future are also listed. The
listed participants are not intended to limit other organizations from participating and may not be
a complete list. However, they are provided to give an indication of who is or might be working
on or participating with the implementation of the action. When the participants would likely
involve additional organizations that are members of SWWT, SWWT is listed. The list of
SWWT member organizations as of March 2010 is provided in Appendix 5B. Also listed in the
tables are the results of completed actions, the status of ongoing actions, and/or the intended
purpose of the action. If the action was identified as a Foundation Action or Priority Action in
Chapter 7, it is noted on the table below the action.
These tables will change over time as actions are completed and the planning process continues.
The intent is for the SWWT to update these tables regularly and modify them as necessary to
help track progress and results. As the adaptive management process moves forward, the actions
for Phases 3, 4 and 5 will be determined and can be added to these tables.
8.2.1 Completed or Committed Actions
Table 8-1 lists recently completed actions on the Menomonee River watershed, the Focus Area
the action is intended to address, and the known results of the action. The source of the
information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meanings of the acronyms used.

TABLE 8-1
RECENTLY COMPLETED ACTIONS
Action
1. Stabilize Streambank at
1
Madison Park
(Priority Action)

Focus Area

Participants

Habitat – Land-Based

MMSD

Results
Reduced erosion along the
streambank in the Upper
Grantosa Creek watercourse

Continued...

8-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-1
RECENTLY COMPLETED ACTIONS
Action

Focus Area

Participants

Results

2. Stabilize River Bank at
2
Hoyt Park
(Priority Action)

Habitat – Land-Based

MMSD

a. Stabilized approximately
600 feet of riverbank and
a headcut in the channel
b. Improved the riparian
margin

3. Remove Hawley Road
2
Bridge

Habitat – Instream-Based

MMSD

Removed the Lower Hawley
Road Bridge improving
channel conveyance

Habitat – Instream-Based

MMSD

a. Removed approximately
1,000 linear feet of
concrete and restored a
more natural channel and
gradient

(Priority Action)
4. Remove Menomonee
2
River Drop Structure
(Foundation Action)

b. Provided fish passage
upstream of the Soo Line
Railroad Spur Bridge
5. Construct Wisconsin
2
Avenue Viaduct Wetland

Habitat – Land-Based
and Phosphorus

City of Milwaukee

Created a half acre wetland
on the west bank of the river
north of the Wisconsin
Avenue Viaduct

Habitat – Land-Based
and Phosphorus

City of Milwaukee

a. Created a stormwater
park and engineered
wetland in the
Menomonee Valley

(Foundation Action)
6. Redevelop Menomonee
2
Valley Shops
(Foundation Action)

b. Completed bank widening
and stabilization on the
north bank immediately
th
west of the 35 Street
Viaduct
c.
7. Widen and Stabilize
River Bank near Miller
2
Park

Habitat – Land-Based
and Phosphorus

(Priority Action)

Southeastern
Wisconsin
Professional
Baseball Park
District

Improved public access

a. Completed bank widening
and stabilization on the
east bank east of Miller
Park
b. Improved public access
Continued...

8-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-1
RECENTLY COMPLETED ACTIONS
Action
8. Develop Hart Park
2
Flood Management Plan

Focus Area

Participants

Habitat – Land-Based
and Phosphorus

MMSD

(Priority Action)

Results
a. Reduced the risk of
flooding to parcels
located along the
Menomonee River in the
vicinity of Hart Park in
Wauwatosa
b. Lowered 48 acres of
floodplain

9. Expand and Implement
Real Time Monitoring
Program

Habitat – Land-Based
and Phosphorus

(Priority Action)

USGS, MMSD,
SWWT

c.

Increased the riparian
margin and stabilized the
riverbank

a.

Installed four real time
continuous water quality
monitoring sites

b.

Maintaining the monitors,
collecting data and
analyzing the resulting
data

Source:
1
MMSD Request for Proposal
2
Lower Menomonee River Status Report, April 25, 2008
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
SSWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

Table 8-2 lists actions that have been initiated on the Menomonee River watershed. Initiation is
defined as the steps necessary to implement an action, as defined in Table 8-5, have started. If
the action was identified as a Foundation Action or Priority Action in Chapter 7, it is noted in the
table below the action. The source of the information is footnoted at the end of the table along
with the meaning of the acronyms used.

8-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action

Focus Area

Participants

Purpose

Status

1. Develop and
Implement
Watershed
Restoration Plans

All Focus Areas

Led by the
SWWT and
including all
organizations that
are members of
SWWT

Use non-governmental
organization (NGO) expertise,
capacity and constituent base
to ensure that non-traditional
(people who normally do not
engage in these efforts) and
traditional participants are
engaged in the watershed
restoration planning process
and that innovative, cost
effective approaches are
taken to improve water
resources

Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

2.Initiate legal and
Policy
Implementation of
the Watershed
Restoration Plans

All Focus Areas

Led by the
SWWT and
including Midwest
Environmental
Advocates,
Sixteenth Street
Community
Health Center,
Clean Wisconsin

a. Identify and advance
effective and innovative
policies and legal tools
that will result in
watershed restoration

Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

1

1

b. Engage key stakeholders
through the SWWT Policy
Committee in the
watershed restoration
planning process and
choose legal/policy
approaches best suited to
bringing about the
improved water quality
and water resources
goals of the SWWT

Continued...

8-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action
3. Develop an
Outreach and
Communications
1
Strategy

Focus Area
All Focus Areas

(Foundation
Action)

Participants
Led by the
SWWT and
including 1000
Friends of
Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper,
Midwest
Environmental
Advocates

Purpose
a. Raise the awareness of
SWWT in the greater
Milwaukee watersheds
and encourage
involvement with issues
concerning water quality
and coordinated
watershed restoration
b. Recruit and involve a
broad constituency for
watershed restoration
efforts
c. Communicate the
progress and successes
of SWWT initiatives
d. Demonstrate the strength
of non-traditional
partnerships and
collaborations in meeting
state stormwater
regulations and
advancing watershed
restoration efforts

Status
Steps 1-9 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

Steps 1-9 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

4. Expand SWWT
Administration and
Committee
1
Support

All Focus Areas

SWWT ESC

Create an integrated structure
that supports watershed
restoration across municipal
and organization boundaries

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

5. Implement
projects to comply
with
nonagricultural
(urban) NR 151
requirements

Public
Health/Bacteria
Phosphorus

WDNR and
Municipalities

Compile required reports and
estimates of TSS reductions
(will also have some benefit
for bacteria and phosphorus
reduction)

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

(Foundation
Action)

Continued...

8-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action
6. Complete
Milwaukee County
3
Grounds

Focus Area
Habitat – Land
Based

Participants
MMSD

(Priority Action)

Purpose

Status

a. Reduce the risk of
flooding to structures in
the Menomonee River
watershed from
Harmonee Avenue in
Wauwatosa downstream
to the Menomonee Valley
by diverting flows from
Underwood Creek
upstream of its
confluence with the
Menomonee River into a
floodwater basin

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

b. Create a passive
recreation area in the
Milwaukee County
Grounds
7. Complete
Habitat – Land
Western Milwaukee Based
Flood Management
3
Plan

MMSD

a. Reduce the risk of
flooding to structures in
the Menomonee River
through a combination of
floodplain lowering and
construction of a
levee/floodwall system

(Priority Action)

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

b. Create passive recreation
areas along State Street
and improve the habitat
potential of
Schoonmacher Creek by
daylighting of
approximately 400 feet
Continued...

8-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action
8. Complete
Underwood Creek
Rehabilitation,
2,3
Phase 1

Focus Area
Habitat –
Instream-Based

Participants
MMSD

(Foundation
Action)

Purpose

Status

a. Improve habitat by
removing approximately
2,200 linear feet of
concrete channel liner on
Underwood Creek from
downstream of Mayfair
Road to the Canadian
Pacific Railway Bridge

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

b. Will enhance the habitat
and natural functions of
Underwood Creek by
replacing the concrete
liner with a series of pools
and riffles in a low flow
channel
c.

9. Complete Airline
4
Yards Project
(Priority Action)

Habitat – LandBased

WisDOT, WDNR,
Menomonee
Valley Partners,
City of
Milwaukee,
Urban Ecology
Center

Will improve habitat by
connecting the channel to
the floodplain with
constructed wetlands
creating a more aesthetic
and natural watercourse
corridor

a. Create a natural area of
approximately 24 acres
along the south bank of
the Menomonee River
between the 35th Street
and the 27th Street
Viaducts

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

b. Completes a segment of
the Hank Aaron State
Trail
c.

Stabilize the south bank

Continued...

8-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action
10. Expand
Greenseams
Program

Focus Area

Participants

Purpose

Habitat – Land
Based

MMSD

Increase in restoration of
wetlands and buffers/green
space in the watershed

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

Public
Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus

WDNR, MMSD,
and
Municipalities

Reduce annual volume and
frequency of CSO and SSO

All steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway

Phosphorus

WDNR,
Municipalities,
businesses and
citizens

Reduce phosphorus loads to
the watershed

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

MMSD,
SEWRPC,
WDNR, USGS,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper,
River Alliance of
Wisconsin

a. Improve quality and
quantity of data collected
to improve decision
making

All steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway

(Foundation
Action)
11. Continue
adaptive
implementation of
overflow control
program (point
source control)

Status

(Foundation
Action)
12. Support
Reduction of
phosphorus loads
due to the state
ban of phosphorus
in commercial
fertilizers
(Foundation
Action)
13. Conduct Water Public
1
Quality Monitoring Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus
(Priority Action)

b. Ensure a sound, scientific
basis for the
development, refinement
and implementation of the
WRPs
c.

Measure the
effectiveness of
implementation efforts

Continued...

8-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action

Focus Area

Participants

Purpose

Status

d. Engage the community,
including non-traditional
(people who normally do
not engage in these
efforts) community
members, in evaluating
improvements in water
quality, aesthetics, and
habitat
14. Conduct
Modeling and
1
Science Work
(Priority Action)

Public
Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus

MMSD,
SEWRPC, River
Alliance of
Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper

a. Use scientifically sound
modeling results, field
collected data, and
analysis to inform WRPs
(including: continue
maintenance of the
MMSD conveyance
model, the watershedwide riverine water quality
model)

All Steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway

b. Measure the effects of
implementation activities
informed by scientifically
sound monitoring results,
field collected data, and
analysis
c.

Collaborate between nongovernmental
organizations (NGO),
academics, consulting
and practicing science
experts, and interested
member of the public on
scientific dimensions of
SWWT’s work

d. Identify and eliminate
illicit discharges to reduce
the bacterial pollution in
target watersheds to
target levels
Continued...

8-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action

Focus Area

Participants

Purpose

Status

e. Build relationships and
generate the necessary
resources to eliminate
illicit discharges
15. Research
development of
better indicator
test than fecal
coliform to
assess risks of
disease and
determination of
human sources

Public
Health/Bacteria

MMSD,
SEWRPC,
WDNR, GLRI

Develop a better assessment
of human health risk to
address pathogens in
stormwater

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

Habitat – LandBased and
Phosphorus

MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities

Reduce water quality and
quantity impacts from
stormwater outfalls, nonpoint
runoff and sewer overflows

Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway

Habitat – LandBased and
Instream-Based
and Phosphorus

MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities

Continue and expand
informational programming

All steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway

All Focus Areas

MMSD

Track implementation of
green infrastructure within the
watershed with an interactive,
web-based mapping tool

Table 8-5
action plan
steps need
to be
initiated

(Priority Action)
16. Implement
traditional and
innovative
techniques to 1)
ensure adequate
conveyance and
storage volume
and 2) reduce
erosion at outfalls
(Priority Action)
17. Continue
outreach and
storm drain
stenciling, waste
disposal, and
awareness of
invasive species
(Priority Action)
18. Implement
MMSD’s
H2OCapture tool

Continued...

8-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Sources:
1

Joyce Fund Reports

2

MMSD RFPs posted on website

3

Lower Menomonee River Status Report, April 25, 2008

4

Wisconsin DOT

CSO = Combined sewer overflow
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources 151 Runoff Management
PPCPs = Pharmaceutical and personal care products
SEWRPC = Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
SSO = Sanitary sewer overflow
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
TRANS 401 = WisDOT CHAPTER TRANS 401: Construction Site Erosion Control
TSS = Total suspended solids
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WRPs = Watershed restoration plans

Table 8-3 lists actions that have been initiated on the Menomonee River watershed. Initiation is
defined as some initial steps have been completed to begin the action, but due to lack of funding
or other factors, steps to complete the action have not started as of the date of this report (March
2010). The source of the information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meaning
of the acronyms used.

8-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
1. Develop Green
Infrastructure (GI)
2,3
Plan

Focus Area
All Focus Areas

(Foundation
Action)

Participants
MMSD, SWWT,
American Rivers,
Municipalities,
WDNR and UWExtension

Purpose
a. Study green
infrastructure and
development
recommendations
for the prioritized
implementation of
green
infrastructure
projects

Status
Table 8-5
action plan
steps need to
be initiated

b. Quantify the
reduction in
stormwater runoff
and enhanced
water quality in the
receiving waters
c.

2. Develop
engineering
techniques to find
and fix illicit
2,3
connections

Continue Green
Milwaukee
program

Public
Health/Bacteria and
Phosphorus

SEWRPC,
SWWT, MMSD,
and Municipalities

Reduce bacteria in the
watershed coming
from illicit connections

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

Public Health,
Phosphorus, Habitat
– Instream-Based

SWWT, MMSD

a. Set the maximum
amount of
pollutants a
watershed can
receive while still
meeting water
quality standards

Table 8-5
action plan
steps need to
be initiated

(Foundation
Action)
3. Develop Total
Maximum Daily
2
Loads

b. Identify steps
needed to reach
the load
allocations and
waste load
allocations

8-14

Continued...

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
4. Complete
Menomonee
Valley Flood
Management
4
(Falk)

Focus Area

Participants
MMSD

Reduce the risk of
flooding for structures
within the Rexnord
industrial complex at
3001 West Canal
Street

Table 8-5
action plan
steps need to
be initiated

Habitat – LandBased

MMSD, WDNR,
SEWRPC, USGS,
Ducks Unlimited,
City of Mequon,
US Fish and
Wildlife Service,
The Conservation
Fund

Improve habitat by
designing and
construct wetlands
and streambank
stabilization on a 103
acre parcel located at
the confluence of the
Little Menomonee
River and the Little
Menomonee Creek

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5 are
underway

Habitat – InstreamBased

MMSD

Improve habitat by
removal of concrete
channel liner on
Underwood Creek
from downstream of
the Canadian Pacific
Railway Bridge to the
confluence with the
Menomonee River

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5 are
underway

(Foundation
Action)

6. Complete
Underwood
Creek
Rehabilitation,
4
Phase 2 Project

Status

Habitat – InstreamBased

(Priority Action)
5. Complete Little
Menomonee
River Wetland
Restoration

Purpose

(Foundation
Action)

8-15

Continued...

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
7. Complete
Menomonee
River Stream
Management
2,4
Project

Focus Area
Habitat – InstreamBased

Participants
MMSD

(Foundation
Action)

Purpose
a. Remove the
concrete channel
for approximately
900 linear feet
from the
Wisconsin Avenue
Bridge to the Soo
Line Railroad Spur
Bridge

Status
Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5 are
underway

b. Restore portions
of the channel to a
more natural
condition to allow
fish passage
without increasing
the flood risk to
riparian structures
8. Restore Honey
1
Creek

Habitat – InstreamBased

MMSD

(Foundation
Action)

a. Identify structures
along the lower
half of Honey
Creek that may be
at risk of flooding

Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5 are
underway

b. Restore the
channel to a more
natural condition
9. Remove/
Retrofit Low
gradient
structures on the
Menomonee
2
River

Habitat – InstreamBased

MMSD, Milwaukee
Riverkeeper

Remove/retrofit five
low gradient structures
in the vicinity of Hoyt
Park

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

Habitat – Land
Based

SWWT, MCSC,
City of Milwaukee,
River
Revitalization
foundation

Plant stormwater trees
to help control
stormwater runoff

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

(Foundation
Action)
10. Implement
Stormwater Trees
program

8-16

Continued...

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
11. Implement
Citizen Monitoring
Program
(includes illicit
connection
detection)

Focus Area

Participants

Status

Public Health and
Habitat – InstreamBased

Milwaukee
Riverkeeper

General water quality
sampling as well as
location of unknown
bacteria sources from
Burleigh to Hawley on
the mainstem and
portions of Honey
Creek and Underwood
Creek downstream of
the highway

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

Habitat – LandBased

River
Revitalization
Foundation

Identify land to be
purchased and
protected from future
development

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

Habitat – InstreamBased and LandBased

Milwaukee
Riverkeeper

Generate plan to
increase diversity in
the watershed

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

Habitat – LandBased

SWWT

Expand buffer width
and continuity

All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

(Foundation
Action)

12. Implement
Menomonee
River Land
Protection Plan

Purpose

(Priority Action)
13. Implement
Menomonee
River Biodiversity
Plan
(Priority Action)
14. Utilize
surveys and
management
activities to
identify and
restore both the
riparian buffer
width and length
(including public
lands) and
inventory
environmentally
sensitive lands,
discourage
additional
development
(Priority Action)

Continued...

8-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
15. Expand and
continue
inventory
maintenance for
fish passage,
habitat and
aquatic biota

Focus Area
Habitat – InstreamBased

Participants
SWWT

Purpose
Continue and expand
monitoring and
informational
programming

Status
All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway

(Priority Action)

Sources:
1

Joyce Fund Reports
MMSD GLRI proposals, November 2009
3
SWWT WRP Action Team Summary, November, 2009
4
Lower Menomonee River Status Report, April 28, 2008
2

CSO = Combined sewer overflow
MCSC = Milwaukee Community Service Corps
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
SEWRPC = Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Table 8-4 lists future actions that are recommended in this plan. These are actions that have not
been initiated on the Menomonee River watershed as of the date of this report (March 2010).
More information for these actions, such as effectiveness and implementation or pollutant
reduction targets and goals, is provided in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 in this WRP. The source of the
information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meaning of the acronyms used.

8-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

1. Enhance WRP
implementation planning
1
capacity

All Focus Areas

Clean Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
th
Riverkeeper, 16 St
CHC, MMSD,
SEWRPC,
municipalities,
technical
consultants, SWWT

Build team that can
develop adaptive
implementation plan

2. Obtain LEED training
and certification for public
1
agency staff

Habitat – Land-Based

Municipalities,
Counties, WisDOT,

Educate public agency
staff on general
environmental issues

3. Conduct stormwater
public education and
1
outreach consortium

All Focus Areas

Municipalities,
Counties, WisDOT,
MMSD

Increase public
knowledge regarding
stormwater and its
relationship to surface
water quality

Habitat – Land-Based

Municipalities,
Counties, WisDOT,
private contractors

Educate public works
and snow plowing
contractors on the
issues associated with
chlorides and water
quality

5. Conduct
stormwater/water issues
survey of watershed
1
residents

All Focus Areas

1000 Friends

Gather public input on
issues of importance

6. Conduct Great Lakes
Educational Programs on
1
Lakeshore State Park

All Focus Areas

1000 Friends,
Lakeshore State
Park, WDNR,
UWM, GLWI,
Discovery World,
Neighborhood
House

General public
outreach/ education

(Foundation Action)
4. Implement chloride
reduction education and
1
certification program
(Foundation Action)

8-19

Continued...

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

7. Participate in Gathering
1
Waters Festival

All Focus Areas

Lakeshore State
Park, US Forest
Service Dept. of
Agriculture, Keep
Greater Milwaukee
Beautiful,
Milwaukee
Moms.com,
Columbia St.
Mary’s, Historic
Third Ward, REI,
Veolia Water, Rip
Tide, Milwaukee
Summerfest,
USEPA, MMSD
and WDNR

General public
outreach/ education

8a. Develop a Riparian
Corridor Management
Guide
8b. Implement pilot
demonstration projects for
the Southern Lake
Michigan shoreline and
1
inflowing rivers
(Priority Actions)

Habitat – Land Based

SEWRPC, Chicago
Metropolitan
Agency for
Planning,
Northwestern
Indiana Regional
Planning
Commission, and
the Southwest
Michigan Regional
Planning
Commission,
SWWT

a. Develop a
comprehensive
riparian corridor
management guide
that would address
information gaps
relative to
effectiveness and
design features of
riparian buffers in
rural and urban
settings
b. Provide guidelines
for optimally
addressing multiple
bufferestablishment
objectives
c. Relate the
establishment of
buffers to
improvements in
ecological health,
habitat, and water
quality
Continued...

8-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose
d. Examine legal
issues related to
developing buffers

9. Complete County
Grounds/UWM Habitat
Restoration Plan

Habitat – Land Based

Milwaukee
County/UWM

Initiate plan for habitat
restoration

Public Health/Bacteria

Municipalities and
SWWT, with
assistance from
UWM GLWI and
MMSD

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

(Foundation Action)
10a.Conduct dry weather
surveys to identify outfalls
that have dry weather
flows
10b.Sample outfalls to
determine which have
human bacteria
discharges (wet and dry
weather samples)
10c.Determine
ownership/owner of
outfalls that have dry
weather flows and/or
human bacteria
10d.Initiate discussion
with owner of outfall to
begin determining
corrective actions.
10e. Implement projects
to correct/ remove/
disconnect unknown
2
sources of bacteria
(Foundation Action)

Continued...

8-21

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action
11a. Identify recreational
and body contact areas

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

Public Health/Bacteria

SWWT

Increase recreational
use of watershed

Habitat – Land-Based

Milwaukee County,
Municipalities,
WDNR, DATCP,
USDA, SWWT, and
Land Trusts

Reduce bacteria
sources from landbased activities

Public Health/Bacteria

Counties,
Municipalities, and
SWWT

Assess older septic
systems to ensure that
they are functioning
properly

Public Health/Bacteria

Counties,
Municipalities, and
SWWT

Increase the number
of municipalities with
strengthened pet litter
programs

11b.Identify other areas
with suitable water quality
and safe flow conditions
for recreation or body
contact
11c.Prioritize areas to
restore for recreational
use identified in above
based on success of
removing unknown
2
sources of bacteria
(Foundation Actions)
12. Identify where public
ownership of land can
serve as a starting point
to increase riparian
2
buffers
(Foundation Action)
13. Develop focused
programs to assess the
impacts of older septic
systems on water quality
(Foundation Action)
14. Manage pet litter by
improving existing
municipal and other
programs and
establishing new
programs
(Foundation Action)

Continued...

8-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action
15. Implement programs
to discourage
unacceptably high
numbers of waterfowl
from congregating near
water features - identify
areas and take action to
discourage waterfowl
feeding

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

Public Health/Bacteria

Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, and
SWWT

Increase number of
areas documented,
and successful
implementation of
programs to eliminate
feeding or other food
sources for waterfowl

Public Health/Bacteria

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR and USDA

Reduce bacteria load
from agricultural land

Public Health/Bacteria

Counties, DATCP
and WDNR

Habitat – Land Based

Counties, WDNR,
USDA and Land
Trusts

Improve natural
hydrology and reduce
sediment load to
streams

Habitat – Land Based

County Land
Conservation
Organizations

Improve water quality
by avoiding the
conversion of pervious
lands to impervious
lands and the
associated change in
runoff volumes and
peak flow rates

Public Health/Bacteria &
Phosphorus

Counties, DATCP,
WDNR and USDA

Reduce bacteria load
from agricultural
sources

(Foundation Action)
16. Provide 6 months
manure storage
(Foundation Action)
17. Prevent cattle from
directly accessing
streams
(Foundation Action)
18. Convert marginal crop
land to wetland or prairie
(Foundation Action)

19. Preserve highly
productive agriculture
land
(Foundation Action)

20. Control barnyard
runoff
(Foundation Action)

Reduce bacteria load
from agricultural
sources

Continued...

8-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action
21. Survey, inventory,
maintain and preserve
Environmentally
Significant Lands

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

Habitat – Land Based

MMSD, SEWRPC,
WDNR, and others
such as land trusts

Preserve quality
habitat

Habitat – Land Based

MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities,
Counties

Moderate flow regimes
to decrease
flashiness, or quick
changes in flow

Habitat – Land Based

WDNR, MMSD,
Municipalities, and
Counties

Reduce chloride
concentration in
streams

Habitat – Land Based

Municipalities,
Counties, and State
with support from
SWWT and MMSD

Allow developers to
use LID to simulate
natural hydrology and
reduce runoff from
development

(Foundation Action)
22.Reduce flashiness of
streams by restoring
floodplain connectivity
with the stream system
and implementing and
maintaining stormwater
2
management practices
(Priority Action)
23a. Evaluate existing
road salt reduction
programs
23b.Implement new pilot
road salt reduction
programs
23c.Implement new pilot
road salt reduction
2
programs
(Foundation Action)
24. Promote the
application of and
eliminate barriers to
implementation of LID on
new developments in the
watershed

Continued...

8-24

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action
25.a Remove concretelined channels and other
obstructions to fish and
aquatic life passage

3

Focus Area

Participants

Habitat – Instream-Based

Municipalities,
SWWT, WDNR and
MMSD

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

Phosphorus

WDNR, MMSD,
and Municipalities

Reduce phosphorus
loads from regulated
discharges

(Foundation Action)
25b.Restore connectivity
with floodplain and
recreate a more natural
meandering stream to
restore stream hydrology
dynamics

Purpose

(Priority Action)
25c.Expand passage
restoration efforts beyond
the mainstem to the
tributaries and develop
and implement plans to
remove additional
2
obstructions
(Foundation Action)
25d. Provide habitat,
maintain water quality to
support fisheries, and
protect excessively
eroding banks
(Priority Action)
26a.Implement projects
and programs to comply
with MS4 permits
(Foundation Action)
Continued...

8-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action
27. Identify source
locations and continue
and expand trash and
debris collection and
disposal

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

Habitat and aesthetics

WDNR, MMSD and
Municipalities

Continue removal of
trash and improve
aesthetics

Phosphorus

MMSD and
Municipalities

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

Habitat – Instream-Based
and Land-Based

SWWT

Develop a more
specific roadmap to
restore habitat in the
watershed

Habitat – Instream-Based

SWWT

Restore a sustainable
fishery and aquatic
community

(Priority Action)
28. Research
development of
alternatives to
phosphorus compounds
by public and private
researchers in area
universities and industries
(Foundation Action)
29. Develop a wildlife
habitat restoration plan
(Priority Action)
30. Protect and expand
highest quality aquatic
communities, reintroduce
natives species, and
remove non-natives
(Priority Action)
Continued...

8-26

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Action

31a. Continue MMSD
water quality monitoring
program and expand it to
include biotic sampling

Focus Area

Participants

3

Purpose

All Focus Areas

MMSD, WDNR,
SWWT, USGS

Continue existing level
of water quality
sampling and funding
and integrate data
collection efforts
among organizations

Habitat – Instream-Based

WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities

Preservation of
groundwater
discharge zones in the
watershed will
preserve base flow to
waterways.

31b.Continue involvement
of USGS and MMSD in
Corridor Study
31c.Coordinate WDNR
sampling and monitoring
programs with MMSD and
USGS and integrate NGO
sampling efforts
(Priority Action)
32. Follow
recommendations of the
regional water supply
plan regarding
maintenance of
groundwater recharge
and discharge areas

Sources:
1

SWWT WRP Action Team Summary, November, 2009
Chapter 7 Tables
3
Organizations listed are proposed to lead the action
2

CHC = Community Health Center
CSO = Combined sewer overflow
DATCP = Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection
GLWI = Great Lakes WATER Institute
LEED = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID = Low impact development
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
MS4 = Municipal separate storm sewer systems
NGOs = Non-governmental organizations
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151
Runoff Management

RWQMPU = Regional Water Quality Management Plan
Update
SEWRPC = Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
SSO = Sanitary sewer overflow
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
UWM = University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WRP = Watershed restoration plan

8-27

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

8.2.2 Watershed Restoration Plan Action Plan for Actions Underway or Initiated
Table 8-5 lists action plan steps to be taken for those actions already underway or initiated as
detailed in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. The table is meant as a roadmap for SWWT action, as the leader
and coordinator for the Menomonee River watershed restoration.
The SWWT term used in the table refers to the entire SWWT organization including the
Executive Steering Council (ESC), the Science Committee, the Menomonee River Watershed
Action Team (WAT), and the Policy Committee. The SWWT ESC will have to determine which
parts of the organization will participate in specific projects; the ESC will also perform the
overall collaboration function.
TABLE 8-5
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR ACTIONS UNDERWAY (TABLE 8-2) OR INITIATED (TABLE 8-3)
Step

Responsibility
1

Comments

1. Ask lead organization to report
progress

SWWT

WRPs will identify actions underway

2. Designate member to monitor
the action

SWWT

One individual should be designated to
monitor an action and report on it

3. Offer assistance and input on
the action

SWWT

Start involvement in the various actions to
keep SWWT connected

4. Offer review comments on
interim work products

SWWT

Continue connection to actions

5. Assess how the action can
synergize with other watershed
actions (build upon actions
underway)

SWWT

Key activity – need to build regional
actions in a way that maximizes synergy
of all actions – avoid disjointed actions

6. Determine if the action needs
supportive action from others

SWWT

What can SWWT do to assist in the
implementation of the action by enlisting
others to assist in implementation?

7. If supporting action is
warranted – start the “new
actions” process

SWWT

Build on actions that are already started

8. If supporting action not
warranted - develop supportive
resolutions

SWWT

In keeping with the non advocacy role –
support the basic science of the action if
warranted
Continued...

8-28

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-5
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR ACTIONS UNDERWAY (TABLE 8-2) OR INITIATED (TABLE 8-3)
Step

Responsibility

Comments

9. Participate in the interim and
final work product reviews

SWWT

Participate in the process and make
SWWT’s voice heard

10. Participate in the development
of the next steps

SWWT

Main function of the SWWT – coordinate
and collaborate so regional progress
continues

11. Participate in determining
impacts of the particular
project on other actions
underway or potential new
actions

SWWT

Main function of the SWWT – coordinate
and collaborate so regional progress
continues

1 – SWWT is defined as the whole organization, led by the ESC
ESC = Executive Steering Council
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
WRP = Watershed restoration plan

8.2.3 New Actions – How to Begin the Process (Implementation Measures)
Table 8-6 lists action steps for new recommended actions/projects in Tables 8-3 and 8-4. The
table is meant as a roadmap for SWWT action, as they lead and coordinate the Menomonee
River watershed restoration.
The term SWWT used in this table refers as noted to the entire SWWT organization, including
the Executive Steering Council (ESC), the Science Committee, the Menomonee River Watershed
Action Team (WAT), and the Policy Committee. The ESC will have to determine which parts of
the organization will participate in specific projects; the ESC will also perform the overall
collaboration function.

8-29

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-6
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR NEW ACTIONS (TABLES 8-3 AND 8-4)
Step

Responsibility

Timeframes

Comments

1. Prioritize Foundation
Actions

WAT/SWWT

Month 1-3

WRPs will be a good start
but may not complete the
prioritization

2. Identify lead
organization

SWWT

Month 4-5

One organization has to
lead

3. Identify collaborating
organizations

SWWT

Same as above

Many can collaborate

4. Assemble
information for the
action (WRPs and
other available
information and
data)

Lead organization
and collaborating
organizations

Month 6-7

WRPs are the start but all
data needs to be
assembled utilizing the
SWWT membership

5. Determine if any
funding is available

SWWT and Lead
Organization

Concurrent with
activities 2-4

All sources need to be
looked at – budgets,
grants, foundations, etc.

6. If none available –
develop funding
strategy

SWWT and Lead
Organization

Concurrent with
activity 5

Most difficult action –
SWWT (ESC) must lead
this

7. Develop package to
apply for funds

Lead and
collaborating
organizations

Month 8-10
(considering
schedule
requirements for
funding requests)

Package will vary
depending upon funding
source

8. Develop
implementation
schedule assuming
funds are obtained

Lead organization

Concurrent with
activity 7

Schedule will have to be
prepared as a part of the
funding request

9. Implement the action
with the funds
obtained

Lead and
collaborating
organizations

Based upon when
funds are obtained

Lead organization assign
responsibilities
Continued...

8-30

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-6
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR NEW ACTIONS (TABLES 8-3 AND 8-4)
Step

Responsibility

Timeframes

Comments

10. Monitor the progress
of the action

Lead and
collaborating
organizations

Based upon
detailed action
schedule

Monitor and report
periodically to the WAT,
Science Committee and
SWWT ESC

11. Assess the results of
the action

Lead and
collaborating
organizations

Based upon
detailed action
schedule

Develop data for posting
on SWWT website

12. Determine outcomes
of the action

Lead and
collaborating
organizations

Based upon
detailed action
schedule

Write a report on the
results

13. Develop next action
(and restart the
process)

SWWT and Lead
Organization

Based upon
detailed action
schedule

Did the action result in
achieving the measureable
interim target?

14. Participate in the
determining the
impacts of the
particular project on
other actions
underway or
potential new actions
(Synergy)

SWWT and Lead
Organization

Based upon
detailed action
schedule

Main function of the SWWT
– coordinate and
collaborate so regional
progress continues

ESC = Executive Steering Council
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
WAT = Watershed Action Team
WRP = Watershed restoration plan

8-31

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

8.2.4 Implementation Schedule and Process
A simplified process chart for Table 8-6 actions is presented as Figure 8-1. This chart depicts
how the various implementation actions are meant to fit together as an ongoing process. This
WRP and this process should form the basis for development of an adaptive strategic action plan
for the Menomonee River watershed.
The SWWT committees can use the information provided in this WRP to further develop an
implementation plan for the watershed. In addition to this chapter, other portions of the WRP
that will be the most useful include the following:
Chapter 4 – Provides detailed information for each assessment point area, including land use,
pollutant loading, and water quality.
Appendix 4A (SEWRPC’s Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and
Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009) –
Contains detailed habitat information and recommendations to improve habitat.
Chapter 6 – Provides anticipated load reductions and other benefits expected from the
recommended management measures used in the RWQMPU.
Chapter 7 – Presents additional management measures and identifies the priority actions for
implementation. Tables 7-1 through 7-5 in Chapter 7 provided detailed information for the
proposed actions.
In addition, SEWRPC’s RWQMPU, which was the basis for this plan, should be used as a
resource when developing the plan. Many other plans and projects have been completed by
SEWRPC, MMSD, WDNR, NGOs and others that can be used as resources as well.
The key element for an action plan for new actions and projects is the designation of the lead
organization. Once this has been done and the collaborating organizations have been identified,
the next step in the action plan will be to develop the new action/project.
The key element of any new project is obtaining funds for implementation of the project. Once
funding is obtained, the implementation schedule can then be further developed.
8.3

Potential Funding Sources

Financial assistance for potential WRP projects may be available from government agencies and
private organizations. Various programs may award money to individual landowners, nonprofit
organizations, educational institutions, and local and state governments. Summaries of the types
of available funds from each source are presented below; more detailed information is available
in Chapter XI and Appendices U and V of A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds (SEWRPC, 2007). Appendices U and V of the
RWQMPU are provided in this report as Appendix 8A.

8-32

FIGURE 8-1

WRP ACTION PLAN FOR NEW
ACTIONS / PROJECTS
Menomonee River watershed
.

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

8.3.1 Local Governments
County and municipal governments are permitted to borrow and issue bonds according to
Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Additionally, counties and cities have the power to assess
special taxes for park and parkway acquisitions and improvements. County and municipal
governments may apply for many of the state, federal, and private grants and cost-share
programs.
8.3.2 State Governments
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) maintain a number of financial
assistance programs. The WDNR tends to provide funds to maintain existing natural forestlands;
to purchase lands for urban stream preservation or restoration; to remove small dams; to design
and implement urban nonpoint source best management practices; to establish easements; to
protect and enhance stream, lake, and wetland habitat; to control and manage invasive species;
and to establish riparian corridors. Additional cost-sharing programs are available from WDNR
to provide assistance with project planning, for educational programs, and for public
involvement programs. The WDATCP provides funding for county water resources
management planning. The WDNR provides funding for flood-proofing and flood mitigation to
incorporated local governments and their sewerage districts.
Many federal grant and cost-share programs are administered through WDNR. For example,
WDNR administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, for planning and acquiring lands for public use (e.g., open space,
natural areas, and recreation). Additionally, some federal agencies provide grants directly to the
states for use as the states see fit. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) provides money to Wisconsin’s Clean Water Fund via the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
8.3.3 Federal Government
Many of the federal agencies in the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and various
other federal agencies have funding programs, including cost-sharing, grants, and loans. Such
programs may provide financial assistance to either individual landowners or state and sub-state
governments. In some cases, funding is provided to support easements or for the acquisition of
private land to local governments for parks and reserves.
Through the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture funds various programs to restore or enhance wildlife habitat, to
reclaim wetlands on agricultural lands, for farming conservation management, and to provide for
flood protection or prevention. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides funding for
several programs for wildlife and fish habitat restoration and improvement. The U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Transportation Enhancement Program can provide funds to
mitigate the effects of the transportation network upon natural streams and wetlands.

8-34

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The USEPA provides funding for numerous programs including: wildlife habitat restoration;
state water pollution control, monitoring, and enforcement activities; and for local and state
governments to develop watershed partnerships. The USEPA also funds environmental and
human health education projects. Projects that implement instream water quality management
and habitat improvements may be eligible for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) grant
programs. The USACE funds can be used to enhance or mitigate instream channel stability and
habitat conditions, including the removal of concrete channel linings, and to restore and enhance
nearshore and estuarine habitat.
8.3.4 Detailed Data on Federal Funding Source
Table 8-7 shows a detailed summary of a typical federal funding source – Nonpoint Source
Implementation Grants (319 Program). This is an example of the detailed requirements for
federal grants and is typical of common federal requirements.
TABLE 8-7
FUNDING PROGRAM NAME: NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS (319
PROGRAM)
Item

Requirement

Application Deadline

Varies by state. Consult the lead nonpoint source agency in
WI (WDNR) (for contact information click on the link listed
under "Secondary Internet").

When Funds are Available

Varies by state.

Average annual number of
applicants

55 states and territories receive grants. Number of tribal
grants awarded highly variable. Applications from recipients
to states vary highly by state.

Typical percentage of
applicants funded

Percentage of applicants who receive money is highly
variable by state and within state from year to year.

Is a matched amount
required?

Case-dependant.

Match Amount

States required to provide 40% non-federal match for whole
grant. Recipients within state typically required to provide
40% match for each project, but this may be negotiable with
a given state.

Funding Level FY 2007

$194 million

Funding Level FY 2008

$200.9 million

Funding Level FY 2009

$200.9 million
Continued...

8-35

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-7
FUNDING PROGRAM NAME: NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS (319
PROGRAM)
Item

Requirement

Typical lowest amount
awarded

Check with the WDNR regarding the administration of 319
Grants.

Typical highest amount
awarded

Check with the WDNR regarding the administration of 319
Grants.

Typical median amount
awarded

Check with the WDNR regarding the administration of 319
Grants.

Other details on funding

N/A

Primary Address

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T)
Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460

Primary Telephone

(202) 566-1155
Continued...

Primary Internet

www.cfda.gov (search on program 66.460)

Secondary Internet

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts.html

Legislative Authority

Clean Water Act, section 319(h)

Associated Keywords

Agriculture, Best Management Practices, Coastal Waters,
Drinking Water, Outreach/Education, Fisheries, Forests,
Land Acquisition, Monitoring, Nonpoint Source Control,
Partnerships, Planning, Point Source Control, Pollution
Prevention, Research, Restoration, Floodplains/Riparian
Zones, Source Water Protection, Stormwater Management,
Watershed Management, Wetlands, Wildlife

Eligible Organizations

Business, Community/Watershed Group, Nonprofit Groups,
Educational Institution, Private Landowner, Conservation
District, Local Government, State/Territorial Agency, Tribal
Agency, Federal Agency

Continued...

8-36

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

TABLE 8-7
FUNDING PROGRAM NAME: NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS (319
PROGRAM)
Item
Eligibility Constraints

Requirement
The immediate grantees are designated state and territorial
NPS agencies. The ultimate recipients of funds are typically
state and local governments, Indian tribes, universities, and
nonprofit organizations, which submit grant applications to
the designated state or territorial agency for funds in
accordance with state and Federal requirements.

FY = Fiscal year
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WI = Wisconsin

8.3.5 Private
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other sources help fund a number of programs
that are administered in cooperation with federal agencies (e.g., USEPA, FWS). For example,
the Partnership for Wildlife program is operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
and administered by the FWS. The Kenosha/Racine Land Trust, Milwaukee Area Land
Conservancy, Ozaukee-Washington Land Trust, and Waukesha Land conservancy acquire lands
or easements for environmentally-valuable lands via purchases, donations, and grants. Eastman
Kodak maintains a small grant program to assess and enhance greenways.
8.3.6 Funding Summary
Appendix U of the SEWRPC Regional Report (SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50), which is
provided as Appendix 8A to this report contains a detailed summary of potential funding
programs to implement plan recommendations.
8.4

Watershed Policy Issues

Policy issues need to be considered as projects are considered for implementation. Consideration
of these policy issues may influence the implementation schedule and process. Issues should be
prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy Committee and should include the following as
an initial list:
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development: This consideration should include the
timing of any TMDLs, agency leadership of the TMDLs, and the exact format of the
TMDLs in terms of which pollutants and which portions of the watershed are included in
the TMDL. An additional potential issue is the regulatory relationship between Wis.
Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management and TMDLs, as noted in
Chapter 2 of this report.

8-37

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Consideration of watershed permits: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are
summarized in the “white paper” found in Appendix 8B.
Water quality trading: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are summarized in
Appendix 8B.
NR 151 implementation: The regulatory and financial issues regarding the
implementation of this regulation may change the assumed impact of this regulation on
water quality and the implementation of this WRP.
Alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water: There are policy issues
that should be addressed as this major source of phosphorus to the watershed is not
currently the focus of any scientific study or regulatory program.
Alternative indicator to replace fecal coliform bacteria: The policy implications of
building a local consensus for and support of new methods to assess water borne disease
risk need to be addressed.
o

State of Wisconsin 303(d) list: The policy implications of the existing listing and
delisting criteria and process for the development of the Wisconsin 303(d) list
need to be addressed.

Evaluate a potential utility to help pay for implementation of the watershed restoration
plan.
8.5

Post-Implementation Monitoring

8.5.1 Use of Adaptive Management
Conclusions and recommendations contained in this WRP are based on the best information and
data that are currently available. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that uncertainties or data gaps
exist with regard to existing conditions, impacts of the proposed actions, some of the proposed
water quality targets, and various other issues.
Other unknowns are present as well, such as the ability of the proposed restoration measures to
fully attain the estimated pollutant reductions. The proposed adaptive management approach
will allow the watershed interests to move forward with water quality improvement activities at
the same time that additional data gathering occurs. These data will then be used to confirm or
adjust some of the plan’s technical assumptions, to fill remaining data limitations, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of restoration measures on an individual and collective basis. This is
part of the “Check” component under the Plan-Do-Check-Act approach.
8.5.2 Measuring Success
Focused monitoring efforts will be required to fulfill three primary objectives:
Obtain additional data to address information gaps and uncertainty in the current analysis
(data gaps monitoring and assessment). Many of the tasks detailed in Tables 8-3 and 8-4
deal with information gaps, but some will remain or will be determined in the future.

8-38

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Ensure that identified management actions are undertaken (implementation monitoring).
This measurement activity is focused on Table 8-2 actions and all Table 8-3 and 8-4
actions as they progress to implementation.
Ensure that management actions are having the desired effect (effectiveness monitoring).
This measurement activity deals with the actual watershed conditions regarding water
quality and habitat, and the assessment of improvement, stability or degradation.
Proposed basic elements of a monitoring strategy to meet these three objectives are described
below. During the implementation phase, the monitoring and analysis plan will need to be
updated and refined as outlined in Section 8.5.5.
8.5.3 Data Gaps
Collection of data to fill current data gaps is the highest priority because these data are needed to
move forward with specific restoration strategies. For example, work on illicit connections
should be prioritized based upon existing or potential recreational opportunities in the
Menomonee River watershed, but no baseline data are available to do the prioritization.
Similarly, no chloride reduction targets are presented due to limited historical and recent water
quality data and an incomplete understanding of the relationship of chloride use to water quality
conditions. A lack of data also resulted in an incomplete understanding of the water quality
issues with metals. These data gaps and others identified during the development of the WRP
include the following:
Location of existing or potential recreational areas in the watershed
Chloride data linking road salt usage (and perhaps other sources) to water quality impacts
Water quality data regarding metals an polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Wildlife data, aquatic and non-aquatic species
Wildlife habitat restoration plan
Location and causes of unknown sources of fecal coliform bacteria entering streams
Local BMP monitoring data
Compilation of existing maps and data that would assist in the implementation of the
WRP
Citizen monitoring data, that has undergone the appropriate quality assurance process,
should be added to the comprehensive database
A full list of data gaps should be developed by the SWWT as implementation continues.
Additional monitoring or studies are therefore needed to address these data gaps. Some of this
information will be obtained as a result of implementing the actions listed in Tables 8-2 to 8-4.
For example, as noted in Table 8-2, the MMSD is developing a web-based tool called
H2OCapture that is expected to allow individuals, residents, and community groups to track their
stormwater management and green infrastructure efforts on maps with an easy to use, friendly,
web interface (Draft MMSD Sustainability Document, November 2009). Although it will not

8-39

Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

contain all of the information needed to fill the gap, it is anticipated that this tool will help with
the data gap regarding the compilation of maps that will assist in the implementation of the
WRP.
The SWWT and the other participants noted in the tables should take the lead in performing
these actions assuming adequate budgets and resources are available.
8.5.4 Implementation Monitoring
The purpose of implementation monitoring is to document whether or not actions and projects
were completed as planned and designed. Objectives of an implementation monitoring program
include the following:
Measuring, documenting, and reporting the watershed-wide extent of recommended
actions and other watershed restoration measures. Suggested measures for this
monitoring activity are outlined for the various actions in the Chapter 7 tables. .
Evaluating the general effectiveness of the various actions as applied operationally in the
field. This monitoring activity should concentrate on the water quality and habitat
information – both historical and newly developed.
Determining the need and direction of watershed education and outreach programs.
Implementation monitoring must consists of monitoring these three major action areas. The
monitoring must be done by the lead organization. This type of information will provide the
Menomonee River WAT with data on the progress of the various actions. The WAT should help
guide the overall implementation monitoring as it varies by each type of action.
8.5.5 Effectiveness Monitoring
A formal review of the Menomonee River WRP should occur in 2015 and should use the water
quality data and habitat data available at that time for each pollutant (and/or the measures that
best represent interpretations of the water quality and habitat conditions existing at that time) to
assess overall progress toward meeting water quality restoration goals.
This effort will include a combination of water quality and biological monitoring and habitat
assessment aimed at determining the effectiveness of restoration activities. This assessment can
be made based on data collected by the SWWT and all of its partners. A much more thorough
and meaningful assessment will be possible if additional data are collected during the intervening
years. Due to many resource constraints, these additional data would need to be collected by
watershed stakeholders with input from the SWWT and the WAT.
Data trends that should be tracked (at a minimum) include the following:
Fecal coliform and other bacterial indicator water quality data
Fish and aquatic life conditions
Phosphorus water quality data

8-40

Watershed Restoration Plan

8.6

Menomonee River

Progress Evaluation and Refinement

This WRP provides the basis for and the documentation of over 80 actions that are either
underway (Table 8-2), that have been initiated (Table 8-3), or that are planned (Table 8-4) for the
Menomonee River watershed. This is an unprecedented level of activity to improve water
quality and habitat in the Menomonee River watershed and will require a significant level of
evaluation.
The first element in the evaluation process, which corresponds to the “Check” component of the
Plan-Do-Check-Act approach, is an annual evaluation of the status of the actions. There should
be periodic comprehensive reviews of the status of all the actions that are to be completed during
the timeframe of 2010 to 2015. These reviews could be made an integral part of annual SWWT
meetings or scheduled at a separate meeting. The annual evaluation should start with all the
actions in Tables 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4; after the evaluation, the tables should be updated to reflect the
current status of the actions.
The second element in the evaluation process should be the annual evaluation of the results of
the various actions. The measures that should be used are noted in the Tables in Chapter 7 and
provide understandable measures upon which to base progress. This also corresponds to the
“Check” component.
The third element of the evaluation process is more complex. It involves reviewing the water
quality data and habitat data with the purpose of determining if the watershed is improving, has
stabilized, or is continuing to deteriorate. This process will require the Science Committee of the
SWWT to assess all new data from the period 2009 to 2015 and determine to the best extent
possible the “improving/stable/deteriorating” status of the watershed in terms of the three focus
areas: public health, habitat and aesthetics, and phosphorus. This element corresponds to the
“Check” component as well, but it is the beginning of the “Act” component.
The last element of the evaluation process deals with potential revision or refinement of the
action plan. This is a complex process that may require an update to this WRP. The key
decision in this element involves – “should the actions be changed if progress is not being
made?” and/or “should the actions be changed due to new information that indicates different
actions should be pursued?” This element corresponds to the “Act” component of the Plan-DoCheck-Act approach.
The third and fourth elements of the evaluation and refinement process will require an update to
this WRP in 2015 if a majority of the actions are completed and the results are known.

8-41

APPENDIX 8A

Appendix U

POTENTIAL FUNDING PROGRAMS TO
IMPLEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Table U-1
FUNDING PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONSa
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USCOE)

USCOE

Water Resources
Development and
Flood Control Acts

Local governments

Flood Hazard
Mitigation and
Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration
Program

Local governments

1.
2.

1.

2.

3.

4.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS)

Emergency Watershed Protection
Program

Individual landowners
provided they have a
local sponsor such as
a local unit of
government

1.

2.

3.

4.

USDA NRCS

Emergency
Conservation
Program

Individual landowners

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Water resources
planning assistance
Emergency streambank
and shoreline protection

50 percent for studies
and 65 percent for
project implementation of Federal costshare assistance;
35 to 50 percent
local match is
required

None

Flood hazard mitigation
to include relocation of
threatened structures
Riverine ecosystem
restoration such as
conservation or
restoration of natural
floodwater storage areas
Planning activities to
determine responses to
future flood situations
Project areas must be in
a floodplain

50 percent for studies
and 65 percent for
project implementation of Federal costshare assistance;
35 to 50 percent
local match is
required

Undetermined

Sale of agricultural
floodprone lands to
NRCS for floodplain
easements
Land must have a
history of repeated
flooding (at least twice in
the past 10 years)
Landowner retains most
of the rights as before
the sale
NRCS has authority to
restore the floodplain
function and value

The USDA pays the
landowner one of
three options: a
geographic rate, a
value based on the
assessment of the
land in agricultural
production, or an
offer made by the
landowner; 75
percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 25 percent
local match is
requiredb

Variable

Regrading and shaping
farmland
Restoring conservation
structures
Redistribution of eroded
soil
Debris removal
Projects must be in
response to a natural
disaster

Up to 64 percent
Federal cost-share
assistance; the
remaining percentage is the
landowner’s
responsibility

After a designated State or
Presidential
disaster
declaration

1411

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Farm
Services Agency
(FSA)

Conservation Reserve
Program

Individual landowners in
a 10- or 15-year
contract

1.
2.
3.
4.

Riparian buffers
Trees
Windbreaks
Grassed waterways

50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 50 percent
local match from
individual; an
annual rental
payment for the
length of the
contract is also
provided

Annually or
ongoingc

USDA FSA

Conservation Reserve
Enhancement
Program

Individual landowners in
a 10- or 15-year
contract

1.
2.
3.
4.

Filter strips
Riparian buffers
Grassed waterways
Permanent grasses
(only in specially
designated grassland
project areas)
Wetland development
and restoration

50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; one-time
signing incentive
payment (up to
$150 per acre);
practice incentive
payment (about 40
percent of cost of
establishing practice); annual rental
payment; State of
Wisconsin lump
sum payment;
Wisconsin practice
incentive payment
(about 20 percent of
cost of establishing
practice)

Ongoing

Acquisition and removal
of structures
Flood proofing and
elevation of structures
Riparian restoration
projects
Acquisition of vacant
land or purchase of
easements
Construction of stormwater and groundwater
facilities related to
flood control and
riparian restoration
projects
Flood mapping

70 percent State costshare assistance;
30 percent local
match

July 15

Problem identification
Species and habitat
conservation
Public enjoyment of fish
and wildlife
Species monitoring
Identification of
significant habitats

$768,000 available
nationallyd

September 1

5.

Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
(WDNR)

Municipal Flood
Control Grants
Chapter NR 199
of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code

Cities, villages, towns,
metropolitan sewerage districts

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS)

Wildlife Conservation
and Appreciation
Program

State fish and wildlife
agencies, private
organizations and
local communities
must work through
their State agency

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

FWS

Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Habitat
Restoration
Program

Private landowners for a
10-year contract

1.

Restoration of degraded
wetlands, native
grasslands, stream and
riparian corridors, and
other habitat areas

Full cost-share and
technical assistance; individual
projects cannot
exceed $25,000

Continuous

FWSe

Partnership for
Wildlife

Nonprofit organizations,
State and local
agencies, and
individuals

1.

Preservation of
nongame fish and
wildlife species
Management of
nongame fish and
wildlife species
Habitat restoration
projects

$768,000 available
nationallyd
Must be matched
equally from outside
sources

September 1

2.

3.

1412

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
FWS

North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund

State and public
agencies

1.

2.
3.

Property acquisition for
the protection of
wetlands that migratory
birds, fish and wildlife
are dependant on
Wetland restoration and
protection projects
Habitat restoration
projects

50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 50 percent
local match is
required

Variable

FWS

Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration
Act Grant Program

States, tribal government, other interested
entities

1.

Cooperative conservation, restoration, and
management of fish and
wildlife resources and
their habitat

Cost-share up to
75 percent of
project cost

February 28

USDA NRCS

Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program

Individual landowners
for a 10-year contract

1.

Instream structures
for fish
Prairie restoration
Wetland scrapes
Wildlife travel lanes

Cost-share of up to 75
percent of
installation

Continuous

2.
3.
4.
USDA NRCS

Wetland Reserve
Program

Individual landowners
for a 10-year agreement, or a 30-year or
permanent easement

1.

Wetland restoration of
lands in current agricultural production

75 to 100 percent
cost-share
depending on
option chosen and
technical assistance. Also between
75 to 100 percent of
the cost of the land
assessment taken
out of production in
a one time payment
for the 30-year and
permanent easement options only

Continuous

USDA

Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Program

State and local
governments

1.

Fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement projects
Wetland restoration
Projects are intended to
be larger scale

Technical assistance
and cost-sharing
are provided; up to
100 percent Federal
cost-share assistance for flood
control prevention;
typical project range
is $3.5 to $5.0
million in Federal
financial assistance

Ongoing

USCOE

Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration
Program

State and local
governments

1.

Restoration of degraded
aquatic ecosystems to a
more natural condition

65 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; local match of
35 percent is
required; maximum
Federal share is
$5,000,000 per
project; 100 percent
of maintenance,
replacement, and
rehabilitation costs
must be provided
locally with nonFederal funds

None

U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA)f

Five-Star Restoration
Program

Public or private
organizations that
engage in communitybased restoration
projects

1.

Wetland restoration
projects
Riparian restoration
projects
Projects must be part of
a larger watershed and
be community based
Projects must also have
at least five contributing
partners

$500,000 available
nationallyd; project
award ranges
between $5,000
and $20,000 at the
local level; average
award is around
$10,000; technical
assistance is also
provided

March 2

2.
3.

2.
3.

4.

1413

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
U.S. Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)

Transportation
Enhancement
Program

State and local units of
government

1.
2.

3.
WDNRg

Stewardship
Incentives Program

Individual landowners

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Wetland preservation
and restoration
Stormwater treatment
systems to address
runoff from roads and
highways
Natural habitat
restoration

80 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 20 percent
local match is
required

Ongoing

Riparian buffers
Reforestation
Forest improvement
Tree planting
Forest management
plan development
Wildlife and fisheries
habitat improvement to
include travel corridors,
nest boxes and platforms, instream habitat
enhancements

65 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 35 percent
cost-share from
individual; $5,000
maximum per
projecth

Ongoing

WDNR

State Wildlife Grants
Program

Nonprofit organizations,
State and local
agencies, and
individuals

Project must address an
ecological priority,
threat/issue, or
conservation action as
identified in Wisconsin’s
Wildlife Action Plan

Planning projects
require 25 percent
non-Federal
matching funds and
implementation
projects require
50 percent nonFederal matching
funds

March 13

WDNR

Small and Abandoned
Dam Removal
Grant Program

Counties, cities, villages,
towns, tribes, public
inland lake protection
and rehabilitation
districts, and private
dam owners

Eligible project costs include
labor, materials, and
equipment directly
related to planning the
actual removal, the dam
removal itself, and the
restoration of the
impoundment.

WDNR will fund
50 percent of
eligible project
costs, with a
maximum grant
award of $50,000

Ongoing

WDNR

County Conservation
Aids

County and tribal
governing bodies
participating in the
county fish and wildlife
programs

Improvement and
enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources and
habitat

Specific funding is
allocated to each
county with the
state paying a
maximum of
50 percent of the
eligible actual
project costs

July 1

WDNR

Urban Rivers Grant
Program

Local units of
government

Land acquisition to preserve
open areas in urban
environments adjacent
to streams and rivers

50 percent State costshare assistance;
50 percent local
match is required

May 1

WDNR

River Protection Grant
Program, Chapter
NR 195 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code

Local units of
government and
nonprofit conservation
organizations

1.

75 percent State costshare assistance;
25 percent local
match is required

March 15 and
September 1

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

1414

Activities designed to
develop partnerships
that protect river
ecosystems
Educational projects
Activities associated
with river management
plan development
Land acquisition
Ordinance development
Installation of practices
to control nonpoint
source pollution

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

WDNR Utilizing U.S.
Department of Interior
Funding

Land and Water
Conservation Fund
Grants Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
Local units of government and State
agencies, apply to the
WDNR

1.

2.

3.

State planning for the
acquisition of State and
local parks
Land acquisition for
open space, estuaries,
forests, and wildlife and
natural resource areas
Facilities to enhance
recreational
opportunities

$40 million available
nationallyd
50 percent costsharing of a project.
Federal funds
cannot exceed 50
percent of an
eligible project

May 1

WDNR

Stewardship Grant
Program, Urban
Green Space
Program

Local units of government , lake
protection and
rehabilitation districts,
and nonprofit
conservation
organizations

1.

Land acquisition for
greenway space in
urban areas, protection
of scenic or ecological
features, and wildlife
habitat improvement

50 percent State costsharing assistance;
50 percent local
match is required

Ongoing

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program

State, local, tribal
governments, and
nonprofit
organizations

1.
2.

Coastal land acquisition
Wetland protection and
habitat restoration
Nonpoint source
pollution control

Total of $1.5 million
annually

November 2

Federal, State, and local
governments,
educational
institutions, and
nonprofit
organizations

1.

Habitat protection and
restoration on private
lands
Sustainable communities through
conservation
Conservation education

Average funding level
is between $25,000
and $75,000 per
project; projects
must have a match
of at least 50 percent from nonFederal funding
sources

Project preproposal:
June 1 and
October 15;
full project
proposal:
July 15 and
December 1

Restore, enhance, and
protect fish communities
and habitats, wetlands,
tributaries and their
watersheds, Great
Lakes shoreline and
upland habitat.
Address terrestrial and
aquatic invasive species
Promote individual
stewardship

Funding level is
between $35,000
and $100,000 per
project; projects
must have a match
of at least 50 percent from nonFederal funding
sources

Project
applications
November 15.
Announceme
nt of awards
April 15 of
following year

Ecological assessments
Mapping and surveying
Planning activities
Creative projects that
work to establish
greenways in
communities
Must have matching
funds from other
sources
Must show that the
project will be completed

Grants with a
maximum amount
of $2,500

March 1 to
June 1

50 to 70 percent State
cost-share assistance; 30 to 50
percent individual
cost-share is
required; in the
case of financial
hardship, up to 90
percent cost-share
assistance can be
obtained from the
State

December 31

National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation

Challenge Grant
Program

3.

2.

3.

National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation

Great Lakes
Watershed
Restoration
Program

State and local
governments, tribes,
and nonprofit
organizations

1.

2.
3.
Eastman Kodak

American Greenway
Grants

Land trusts, local units
of government, and
nonprofit
organizations

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection
(DATCP)

Land and Water
Resource
Management
Program

Individual landowners

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Grassed waterways
Manure storage systems
Grade stabilization
structure
Nutrient and pest
management plans
Conservation tillage

1415

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement (continued)
DATCP

Farmland
Preservation
Program

Individual landowners
for a period of 10
years

1.

Best management
practices that will lower
the soil erosion rate to
the tolerable soil loss
rate or below

Tax incentives on an
annual basis

None

WDNR

Urban Nonpoint
Source Water
Pollution Abatement
and Storm Water
Management Grant
Program. Funding
is through Chapter
NR 155 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code

Local units of
government

1.
2.

Planning
Educational and
information activities
Ordinance development
and enforcement
Training
Storm water detention
ponds
Streambank and
shoreline stabilization

70 percent State costshare assistance for
projects not involving construction,
requiring a 30 percent local match; 50
percent State costshare assistance for
projects involving
construction,
requiring a 50 percent local match

May 1

Targeted Runoff
Management Grant
Program, Chapter
120 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code; in the future,
specific rural
nonpoint source
abatement
measures will be
funded under
Chapter NR 151 of
the Wisconsin
Administrative Code

Local units of
government

Complying with nonpoint
source performance
standards
Improving 303(d) waters
Protecting outstanding
water resources
Compliance with a
notice of discharge for
an animal feeding
operation
Addressing a water
quality concern of
national or statewide
importance, such as the
Upper Mississippi River
concerns

70 percent State costshare assistance;
30 percent local
match is required.
Rural projects
cannot exceed
$30,000 in funding
and urban projects
cannot exceed
$150,000

May 1

WDNR

Land Recycling Loan
(Brownfields)
Program

Local units of
government

Remedy environmental
contamination affecting
surface water or
groundwater

USDA NRCS

Environmental Quality
Incentives Program

Individual landowner in a
three-year contract

1.

WDNR

3.
4.
5.
6.

1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

2.

3.
4.

Low interest loan

Dec. 31

Animal waste
management practices
Soil erosion and
sediment control
practices
Nutrient management
Habitat improvement

75 to 90 percent
Federal cost-share
assistance

Annuallyi

USDA

Water Quality Special
Research Grants
Program

Land-Grant Institutions,
Hispanic-Serving
Institutions, State and
Private controlled
Institutions of higher
education

Projects funded shall
improve the quality of
surface water and
groundwater resources
through research,
education, and
extension activities

Awards up to
$600,000 a dollarfor-dollar match is
required

April 4

USEPA

U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund

Low interest loans
offered to and
distributed by the
state to various
borrowers to fund
water quality
protection projects

1.

Currently the program
has more than $27
billion in assets

Ongoing

2.
3.
4.

5.

1416

Agricultural, rural, and
urban runoff control
Estuary improvement
projects
Estuary improvement
projects
Wet weather flow
control, including storm
water and sewer
overflows
Alternative treatment
technologies water
reuse and conservation
projects.

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement (continued)
USEPA

Water Pollution
Control Program
Grants

State and interstate
water pollution control
agencies

Water Quality Management
programs including
permitting, pollution
control activities,
surveillance, monitoring,
and enforcement, and
provision for training and
public information.

Formula Grants
$5,630,000
available
nationallyd

Ongoing

USEPAj

Watershed Assistance
Grants Program

Local units of government, nonprofit
conservation
organizations

Developing watershed and
river partnerships and
organizations

$365,000 available
nationallyd; locally
projects are funded
in the following
ranges: $4,000 and
under, and $4,000
and over with a cap
of $30,000

Variable

USEPA

Targeted Watershed
Grants Program

Watershed
organizations
nominated by state
governor or tribal
leader

Innovative watershed level
approaches for
combating threats and
impairments and a clear
set of performance
measures with identified
and measurable
environmental indicators

Range from $600,000
to $900,000 and a
25 percent nonFederal match is
required

May 1

USEPA

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Grants Program

Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program
(PESP) Partners and
Supports, any
organization, group, or
business committed to
reducing the
environmental risk
from pesticides is
eligible to join

1.

Implementation of
pollution control
measures
Plan development which
includes strategies to
reduce pesticide risk
Grant applicants must
be PESP partners or
members

$300,000 available
nationallyd; locally
grants are provided
up to a maximum of
$50,000

Ongoing

Coastal land acquisition
Wetland protection and
habitat restoration
Nonpoint source
pollution control

Total of $1.5 million
annually

November 2

80 percent Federal,
20 percent State;
interest rate varies
with State bond
issues

Ongoing

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program

State, local, tribal
governments, and
nonprofit
organizations

2.

3.

1.
2.
3.

Point Source Pollution Abatement Recommendations
USEPA

U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund

Funding for State of
Wisconsin Clean
Water Fund Program
which issues grants to
municipalities

1.
2.

3.

Sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities
Nonpoint source
pollution abatement
projects
Estuary protection
projects

USEPA

Direct Federal LineItem Grant

State and interstate
water pollution control
agencies

Wastewater construction
and planning projects

Formula Grants
yielding more than
$3 billion in direct
wastewater-related
grants since 1992

Ongoing

USDA

Water and Waste
Disposal Systems
for Rural
Communities

Local units of governments, nonprofit
organizations,
associations, and
districts

1.

$706 million in loans,
$528 million in
grants, and $75
million in guaranteed loans available
nationallyd

Determined by
State USDA
office

2.

3.

Installation, repair,
improvement or
expansion of a rural
water facility
Installation, repair,
improvement or
expansion of a rural
waste disposal facility
Collection and treatment
of sanitary waste,
stormwater and solid
wastes

1417

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Inland Lake and Lake Michigan Water Quality
USEPA

Beach Act Grants

State, local, tribal
governments

Develop and implement
beach water quality
monitoring and
notification programs at
Great Lakes beaches.
Develop and implement
programs to inform the
public about the risk of
exposure to diseasecausing microorganisms
in the waters at the state
beaches.

Formula Grants
Wisconsin’s 2007
allocation $225,960

Annual

FWS

Federal Clean Vessel
Act

State, local, tribal
governments, and
nonprofit
organizations

Education/information
materials, construction,
renovation, operation
and maintenance of
pump out and dump
stations, including
floating restrooms

Range from $30,000
(there is no specific
minimum) to
$1,000,000 and a
25 percent nonFederal match is
required

January 31

USCOE

Estuary Habitat
Restoration
Program

State, local, tribal
governments

Habitat restoration activities
including the reestablishment of
chemical, physical,
hydrologic, and
biological features and
components

Project costs should
not be less than
$100,000 or more
than $1,000,000.
The Federal share
will generally not
exceed 65 percent

Ongoing

WDNR

Aquatic Invasive
Species Control
Grants

Counties, local and tribal
government, public
inland lake protection
and rehabilitation
districts, and town
sanitary districts

1.

Education, prevention
and planning
Established infestation
control
Early detection and
rapid response

Awards up to
50 percent of the
cost of a project up
to a maximum grant
amount of $75,000

Local units of
governments, lake
districts, and nonprofit
conservation
organizations

1.

Gathering and analyzing
water quality information
Land use planning
within lake watersheds
Gathering and compiling
demographic information
pertinent to individual
lakes
Developing lake
management plans

Up to 75 percent State
cost-share assistance, not to
exceed $10,000; 25
percent local match
is required; lakes
are eligible for more
than one grant,
however, the total
amount of State
dollars cannot
exceed $100,000

February 1 and
August 1

Land acquisition
for easement
establishment
Wetland restoration
Lake restoration projects
Other projects involving
lake improvement

75 percent State costshare which cannot
exceed $200,000;
25 percent local
match is required

May 1

WDNR

Lake Planning Grant
Program, Chapter
NR 190 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code

2.
3.

2.
3.

4.

February 1 and
August 1

Lake Protection Grant
Program, Chapter
NR 191 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code

Local units of
government, lake
districts, and nonprofit
conservation
organizations

1.

WDNR

Lake Classification
Grant Programk

Counties

1.

Development of a
county lake classification
system

$50,000 per grant

May 1

Great Lakes Governors

Great Lakes
Protection Fund

Government agencies,
nonprofit
organizations,
businesses,
individuals

1.

Addressing biological
pollution
Ecosystem restoration
Market mechanisms for
environmental
improvement
Restoring natural flow
regimes

Variable

None

50 percent Federal,
50 percent
cooperator

Annual

WDNR

2.
3.
4.

2.
3.

4.

Water Quality Monitoring
USGS

1418

Stream Gaging
Cooperator
Program

State agencies,
sewerage system and
wastewater treatment
plant operators, and
other units of
government

1.

Installation, operation,
and maintenance of
stream gages

Table U-1 (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of Funding
Program

Eligibility

Types of Projects and
Funding Eligibility Criteria

Assistance
Provided

Application
Deadline

Educational and Other Watershed Improvement Grants
USEPA

Environmental
Education Grants
Program

Local or State education
agencies, colleges,
and nonprofit
organizations, State
environmental
agencies, and
noncommercial
education broadcasting agencies

1.
2.

3.

4.
5.

Improving environmental
education teaching skills
Educating teachers,
students, or the public
about human health
problems
Building capacity for
environmental education
programs
Education communities
Educating the public
through print, broadcast,
or other media

$2 million available
nationallyd; locally,
grants are for
$5,000; $5000 to
$25,000; and up to
$100,000

Mid-November

NOTE: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can be
accessed through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/ and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries Grants
Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
aSome of the programs described in this table may not be available under all envisioned conditions for a variety of reasons, including local eligibility requirements
or lack of funds in Federal and/or State budgets at a given time.
bIn kind services are allowed as a part of the local cost-share assistance.
cTwo types of sign-up are available for CRP: continuous CRP, which has no timeline and is used for small sensitive tracts of land and regular CRP, which has an
annual sign up application period and is used for large tracts of land.
dAvailable on an annual basis.
eThe Fish and Wildlife Service receives support funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to help fund this program.
fMust apply through an intermediary organization which includes the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Service and Conservation
Corps, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Wildlife Habitat Council.
gThe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources utilizes USDA Forest Service funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program.
hCost-sharable practices must be part of implementation of a Forest Stewardship Plan prepared by a forester.
iEQIP provides minimal funding in Southeastern Wisconsin.
jThe USEPA provides grant funding to the private nonprofit organization River Network to disburse funding. Applications must be made through River Network.
kThe Lake Classification Grant Program is a subgrant program of the Lake Protection Grant Program.
Source: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Upper Des Plaines River Phase 2 Funding Project Interim Report, December 2000, and SEWRPC.

1419

Table U-2
POTENTIAL GRANT PROGRAMS TO IMPLEMENT SELECTED SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Plan Recommendations

Grant Programs
Point Source Pollution Abatement

1.

Construction of Municipal Sewerage and Wastewater
Treatment Facilities

1.

Reduce Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
A. Reduce Erosion from Cropland through Measures Such
as Conservation Tillage and Grassed Waterways

x
x
x
x

USEPA – Clean Water State Revolving Fund
WDNR – State of Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Program
Direct Federal Line-Item Grant
USDA – Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities

Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
x
x
x
x
x

USDA – NRCS – Environmental Quality Incentives Program
USDA – Emergency Conservation Program
USDA – FSA –Conservation Reserve Program
DATCP – Land and Water Resource Management Program
WDNR – Targeted Runoff Management Grant Program

B. Install Riparian Buffers/Filter Strips

x
x
x

USDA – FSA –Conservation Reserve Program
USDA – FSA – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
WDNR – Targeted Runoff Management Grant Program

C. Practice More Effective Manure and Nutrient
Management

x
x
x

USDA – NRCS – Environmental Quality Incentives Program
DATCP – Land and Water Resource Management Program
WDNR – Targeted Runoff Management Grant Program

D. Install Diversions Around Barnyards

x
x
x

USDA – FSA – Conservation Reserve Program
USDA – NRCS – Environmental Quality Incentives Program
WDNR – Targeted Runoff Management Grant Program

E. Restrict Livestock Access to Streams

x

WDNR – Targeted Runoff Management Grant Program

F.

x

DATCP – ATCP50 Cost-Share Funds

x

USDA – Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Program

x

WDNR – Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Grants Program

x

WDNR/USFWS – Federal Clean Vessel Act Grant Program

Manage Milking Center Wastewater

G. Expanded Oversight and Maintenance of Private Onsite
Sewage Disposal System
2.

Reduce Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution
A. Implement Nonagricultural Performance Standards of
Chapter NR 151 for Construction Sites, Existing and
New Development, and Redevelopment
B. Marina Waste Management Facilities

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures
1.

Encourage Riparian Buffer Establishment Along Stream and
River Corridors

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

USFWS – Partners for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program
USDA – NRCS – Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
USDA – FSA – Conservation Reserve Program
USDA – Emergency Watershed Protection Program
USEPA – Five-Star Restoration Program
WDNR – Stewardship Incentives Program
WDNR – Urban Rivers Grant Program
WDNR – Municipal Flood Control Grants Program
WDNR/U.S. Department of the Interior – Land and Water Conservation
Fund Grants Program
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – Challenge Grant Program
Eastman Kodak – American Greenway Grants Program
Great Lakes Governors – Great Lakes Protection Fund

2.

Establish Buffers Along Lake Shorelines

x

WDNR – Lake Protection Grant Program

3.

Wetland Restoration/Protection

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

USDA – Emergency Watershed Protection Program
USFWS – North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
USFWS – Partners for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program
USFWS – Partnership for Wildlife
USDA – NRCS – Wetland Reserve Program
USDA – Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program
USDA – Emergency Watershed Protection Program
USDA – NRCS – Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
USDA-FSA – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
USDA – FSA – Conservation Reserve Program
USEPA – Five-Star Restoration Program
USDOT – Transportation Enhancement Program
USCOE – Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program
WDNR – Lake Protection Grant Program
WDNR – Stewardship Incentives Program
WDNR – Municipal Flood Control Grants Program
WDNR – River Protection Grant Program
Great Lakes Governors – Great Lakes Protection Fund
Eastman Kodak – American Greenway Grants Program

1420

Table U-2 (continued)
Plan Recommendations

Grant Programs

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
4.

Prairie Restoration

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

USFWS – Partners for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program
USFWS – Partnership for Wildlife
USDA-NRCS – Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
USDA – Emergency Watershed Protection Program
USDA-FSA – Conservation Reserve Program
USDA-FSA – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – Challenge Grant
WDNR – River Protection Grant Program
WDNR – Stewardship Incentives Program
WDNR – Municipal Flood Control Grants Program
Eastman Kodak – American Greenway Grants Program

5.

Concrete Channel Renovation and Rehabilitation

x
x
x

USCOE – Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program
WDNR – River Protection Grant Program
Great Lakes Governors – Great Lakes Protection Fund

6.

Dam Abandonment and Associated Stream Restoration

x
x

WDNR – Small and Abandoned Dam Removal Grant Program
Great Lakes Governors – Great Lakes Protection Fund

7.

Fisheries Protection and Enhancement

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

USFWS – Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act Grant Program
USFWS – Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Program
USFWS – Partners for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program
USFWS – Partnership for Wildlife
USDA – NRCS – Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
USDA – Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program
USCOE – Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
WDNR – State Wildlife Grants Program
WDNR – County Conservation Aids
WDNR – Stewardship Incentives Program
WDNR – Stewardship Grant Program
Great Lakes Governors – Great Lakes Protection Fund
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Program
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – Challenge Grant Program

8.

Water Quality Monitoring

x
x

USEPA – Beach Act Grants
USGS – Cooperative Stream Gaging Program

1.

Preparation of Lake Management Plans

x
x
x
x

WDNR – Lake Protection Grant Program
WDNR – Lake Planning Grant Program
WDNR – Lake Classification Grant Program
WDNR – Aquatic Invasive Species Control Grants

2.

Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution

x

See “Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement” and “Riparian Buffers,
Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures” categories in this table for
applicable grant programs

3.

Lake Monitoring

x

USGS – Cooperative Stream Gaging Program

4.

Informational Programming

x

See “Education” category in this table for applicable programs

1.

Provide Information to Agricultural Landowners through Short
Courses and Distribution of Educational Materials on the
Environmental and Economic Benefits of Nutrient
Management and Soil Erosion Control

x

WDNR – River Protection Grant Program

2.

Work with and Provide Information to Agricultural Supply
Companies, Lawn Maintenance Companies, and Golf Course
Superintendents on the State Requirements and Principles of
Nutrient and Chemical Management

x

WDNR – River Protection Grant Program

3.

Provide Information to Contractors and Developers on
Appropriate Best Management Practices for Stormwater
Management and Erosion Control

x

WDNR – Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Grants Program

4.

Provide Information to Riparian Property Owners and
Landscape Contractors on the Effectiveness of Riparian
Buffers and Design Options

x

WDNR – River Protection Grant Program

5.

Promote and Help to Implement In-School Environmental
and Natural Resource Educational Programs

x

USEPA – Environmental Education Grants Program

6.

Provide Information to Watershed Residents on Appropriate
Yard Care Management Practices

x
x

WDNR – River Protection Grant Program
WDNR – Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Grants Program

Inland Lake Measures

Education

1421

Table U-2 (continued)
NOTES:

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can
be accessed through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries
Grants Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
The following abbreviations were used in this table:
FSA
USFWS
NRCS
USCOE
USDA

Source: SEWRPC.

1422





Farm Services Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT
USEPA
USGS
DATCP
WDNR





U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Appendix V

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
FUNDING CONTACT INFORMATIONa,b
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of
Grant Program

Address

Phone Number

Internet Web Address

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USCOE)

Water Resources
Development and Flood
Control Acts

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226

(888) 694-8313

www.lre.usace.army.mil

USCOE

Flood Hazard Mitigation and
Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration Program

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Planning Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314

(202) 761-0115

www.usace.army.mil

U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resource
Conservation Service
(NRCS)

Emergency Watershed
Protection Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
6515 Watts Road, Suite 200
Madison, WI 53719

(608) 276-8732

www.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA NRCS

Emergency Conservation
Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
826 Main Street
Union Grove, WI 53182

(262) 878-1243

www.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA, Farm Services Agency
(FSA)

Conservation Reserve
Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farm Services Agency
826 Main Street
Union Grove, WI 53182

(262) 878-1234

www.fsa.usda.gov

USDA FSA

Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program

County Land Conservation Department
USDA Farm Service Agency
or
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(262) 878-1234

www.fsa.usda.gov

Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR)

Municipal Flood Control
Grants Chapter NR 199
of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street - CF/8
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

(608) 267-7152

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Ef/flood/gr
ants.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)

Wildlife Conservation and
Appreciation Program

Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Division of Federal Aid
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 400
Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 358-1852

www.fws.gov

FWS

Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Restoration
Program

Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Division of Federal Aid
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 400
Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 358-2201

www.fws.gov/cep/coastweb.html

FWS

Partnership for Wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

(703) 358-2156

www.fa.r9.fws.gov

FWS

North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund

Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Executive Director of North American
Waterfowl and Wetlands Office
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 110
Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 358-1784

www.northamerican.fws.gov/nawchp.html

1423

Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of
Grant Program

Address

Phone Number

Internet Web Address

Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
FWS

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act Grant
Program

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, MN 55111

(612) 713-5168

www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/glfwragrants.html

NRCS

Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
826 Main Street
Union Grove, WI 53182

(262) 878-1234

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Wetland Reserve Program
USDA

Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Program

Headquarters: Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013

(202) 720-3534

www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/programs.html

USCOE

Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226

(888) 694-8313

www.lre.usace.army.mil

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA)

Five-Star Restoration Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed (4502F)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-8076

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star
www.nfwf.org

Program operated in cooperation with the National
Association of Counties, the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, the Wildlife Habitat Council,
and the Southern Company
U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT)

Transportation Enhancement
Program

U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366-4000

www.dot.gov

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program

Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
P.O. Box 8944
Madison WI 53708-8944

(608) 267-7982

www.doa.state.wi.us

WDNR

Stewardship Incentives
Program

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
9531 Rayne Road, Suite 4
Sturtevant, WI 53177

(262) 884-2390

www.dnr.state.wi.us

WDNR

State Wildlife Grants Program

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Endangered Resources
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707

(608) 264-6043

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/swg/

WDNR

Small and Abandoned Dam
Removal Grant Program

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Small and Abandoned Dam Removal Grant Program
c/o River Program Coordinator, FH/3
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

(608) 266-9273

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Grants/Da
mRemov.html

WDNR

County Conservation Aids

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53212

(414) 263-8610

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Grants/coc
onserv.html

Urban Rivers Grant Program

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53212

(414) 263-8704

www.dnr.state.wi.us

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53212

(414) 263-8704

www.dnr.state.wi.us

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service, Recreation Programs
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

(202) 565-1200

www.ncrc.nps.gov/lwcf

(202) 857-0166

www.nfwf.org/guideliens.htm

WDNR

River Protection Grant
Program
WDNR Utilizing U.S. Department of Interior Funding

Land and Water Conservation
Fund Grants Program
Stewardship Grant Program,
Urban Green Space
Program

or

National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation

Challenge Grant Program

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation

Great Lakes Watershed
Restoration Program

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Attention: Great Lakes Watershed Restoration
Grants Program
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, MN 55111

Eastman Kodak

American Greenway Grants

American Greenways
The Conservation Fund
1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120,
Arlington, VA 22209

1424

--

(703) 525-6300

http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Secti
on=Browse_All_Programs&CONTENTID=48
83&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

www.conservationfund.org

Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of
Grant Program

Address

Phone Number

Internet Web Address

Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection
(DATCP)

Land and Water Resource
Management Program

WDNR

Urban Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement and
Storm Water Management
Grant Program

Farmland Preservation
Program

Targeted Runoff Management
Grant Program

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection
Agricultural Resource Management
2811 Agriculture Drive
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708

(608) 224-4500

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Watershed Management
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

(608) 266-2621

www.dnr.state.wi.us

www.datcp.state.wi.us

(608) 224-4633

WDNR

Land Recycling Loan
(Brownfields) Program

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Community Financial Assistance
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

(608) 266-0849

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/EL/S
ection/brownfield.html

NRCS

Environmental Quality
Incentives Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
826 Main Street
Union Grove, WI 53182

(262) 878-1234

www.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA

Water Quality Special
Research Grants Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture;
1400 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20250-2210

(202) 205-5952

www.csrees.usda.gov

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Clean Water State
Revolving Fund

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7359

http://www.epa.gov/owm

USEPA

Water Pollution Control
Program Grants

US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-8831

http://www.epa.gov/owm

USEPA

Watershed Assistance Grants
Program

River Network
520 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1130
Portland, OR 97204

(503) 241-3506

www.rivernetwork.org

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
401 M Street, SW, 4501F
Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-9194

www.epa.gov/owow/wag.html

or

USEPA

Targeted Watershed Grants
Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
1301 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20004

(312) 886-7742

www.epa.gov/twg/

USEPA

Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Grants
Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
Office of Pesticides
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

(703) 308-7035

www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP

USEPA

Direct Federal Line-Item Grant

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 353-2000

www.epa.gov/ogd/

USDA

Water and Waste Disposal
Systems for Rural
Communities

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Water and Environmental Programs
Room 4050-S, Stop 1548
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250

(202) 690-2670

www.usda.gov/rus//water/programs.htm

USEPA

Beach Act Grants

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Resources Center
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-1731

www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/

FWS

Federal Clean Vessel Act

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Assistance
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203

(703) 358-2156

http://federalasst.fws.gov/cva/cva.html

Point Source Pollution Abatement Recommendations

Inland Lake and Lake Michigan Water Quality

1425

Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program

Name of
Grant Program

Address

Phone Number

Internet Web Address

Inland Lake and Lake Michigan Water Quality (continued)
USCOE

Estuary Habitat Restoration
Program

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20314

(202) 761-4750

www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwp/estuary_act/

WDNR

Aquatic Invasive Species
Control Grants

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53212

(414) 263-8610

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cfa/Grants/Lakes/i
nvasivespecies.html

WDNR

Lake Planning Grant Program

UWEX-Lakes Partnership
UW-Stevens Point
1900 Franklin Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481

(715) 346-2116

www.uwsp.edu/cnr/uwexlakes/grants

(847) 425-8150

www.glpf.org

(703) 648-5301

http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/SG.html

(202) 260-8619

www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html

Lake Protection Grant
Program
Lake Classification Grant
Program
Great Lakes Governors

Great Lakes Protection Fund

Great Lakes Protection Fund
1560 Sherman Avenue, Suite 880
Evanston, IL 60201

USGS

Stream Gaging Cooperator
Program

U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Surface Water
415 National Center
Reston, VA 20192

USEPA

Environmental Education
Grants Program

Water Quality Monitoring

Educational and Other Watershed Improvement Grants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Education (1704)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

aThe Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can be accessed through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/ and through the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries Grants Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
bSome of the programs described in this table may not be available under all envisioned conditions for a variety of reasons, including local eligibility requirements or lack of funds in Federal
and/or State budgets at a given time.
Source: SEWRPC.

1426

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 8B

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-Based
Permitting Primer

Prepared for:

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
January 20, 2010

Washington, DC
www.limno.com

This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

January 20, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................2
THE NAVIGATOR PROCESS.....................................................................................3
Navigator Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories........................................... 3
Navigator Element 2:Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach ................................... 4
Table 1: Average Annual Loads of Total Phosphorus in the Menomonee
River Watershed ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Average Annual Loads of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in the
Menomonee River Watershed .............................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Average Annual Loads of Total Suspended Solids in the
Menomonee River Watershed .............................................................................................. 7

NAVIGATOR ELEMENT 3: CONSTRUCT AN NPDES WATERSHED
FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................10
NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUANCE ON A WATERSHED
BASIS ..........................................................................................................................11
Coordinated Individual Permits .................................................................................................... 11
Integrated Municipal NPDES Permit Coverage ........................................................................... 12
Multi-source Watershed-based Permit .......................................................................................... 12

WET-WEATHER INTEGRATION ............................................................................13
INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT FOR WATERSHED-BASED STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................................14
PERMIT SYNCHRONIZATION ................................................................................14
STATE-APPROVED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................15
Figure 1- Implementation Option Scoring ........................................................................... 16

BUILDING THE PERMIT ..........................................................................................17
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................18

LimnoTech

Page iii

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Executive Summary
The following White Paper/Analysis evaluates the applicability of a watershed-based permitting
approach for the entities within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds and the most appropriate
option(s) under this approach. The findings of the analysis support the use of a permitting
approach that is based upon implementation of the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP)
developed for the applicable watershed as well as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU, 208
Plan). Under this approach, the WRP and the RWQMPU would be limited to plans and processes
for protecting water quality standards and would be cited in each facility’s Permit Fact Sheet as
the basis for the control requirements established in the permit. The WRP and RWQMPU would
also be used to establish the monitoring and reporting requirements for the permit. The federal
regulations require permits to include limits that are as stringent as necessary to meet water
quality standards, and that the limits be consistent with approved 208 plans (see 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1) 1 & (d)(6)). The regulations also prohibit the issuance of a permit that is not
consistent with an approved 208 Plan (see 40 CFR 122.4(g). This may be accomplished through
development and issuance of individual coordinated permits as an appropriate approach for this
region or a multi-source integrated permit depending on decisions made by those involved in the
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds regarding pollutants of concern to be addressed and priorities for
applying resources.
By developing the permits in a coordinated fashion and using the WRP and RWQMPU as the
basis for the permit, the approach will allow the permittees to continue to work together on
restoration efforts and ensure that there is no conflict between regionally identified goals and
requirements established in the NPDES permits. A watershed-based approach will allow the
permittees to align permit requirements with the WRP and RWQMPU and allow the permit to
become a vehicle to support the WRP. Additionally, the linkage of plans required by CSO and
stormwater permits (such as the combined sewer system Long Term Control Plan or the
stormwater management plan) with the watershed plans and their associated goals can be
ensured through this process. If the permits are not developed on a watershed-basis and are not
aligned with the WRP there is the potential for resources being directed at permit requirements
and plans that are not part of the WRP and, consequently, there is potential for conflicting efforts
such as monitoring that is not coordinated or projects that are focused on different priorities.
As discussed in US EPA’s Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance (2003), although the permitting authority often
initiates this process, the process can also be based on the initiative of one or more stakeholders
who spearhead this approach. Due to concerns at the state level in Wisconsin regarding resources
to pursue a non-traditional approach to permitting, it is recommended that the
permittee/stakeholders develop the draft permit language as well as the fact sheet for submission
1

122.44(d)
(1) Achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water
quality.
(6) Ensure consistency with the requirements of a Water Quality Management plan approved by EPA under section 208(b) of
CWA.
122.4
(g) For any discharge inconsistent with a plan or plan amendment approved under section 208(b) of CWA.

1

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A similar approach was used for permits in
Oregon and found to be very beneficial. Having the stakeholders directly involved in the permit
development is also beneficial as they best understand the system and the issues at the watershed
level.
The process outlined in the paper provides a system for the stakeholders and permittees
evaluating this approach in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds (herein after referred to as the
“Group”) to more fully assess priorities and apply a permitting approach to better focus on
priorities. The approach discussed in this paper was structured according to the steps identified in
the Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting
Technical Guidance (US EPA 2007). The Technical Guidance facilitates the use of a NPDES
Watershed Navigator (the Navigator), which includes three elements that are broken into a series
of questions that facilitate analysis of watershed data and determine how best to structure and
manage implementation of the NPDES program in a way that considers the entire watershed.
The Navigator is used to help a permittee work through a watershed permitting analytical
approach and construct an NPDES watershed framework in a watershed. In this paper, each of
the questions is evaluated from the perspective of the point sources (this includes wastewater
treatment plants and stormwater) within the Greater Milwaukee Watershed and
recommendations are made based on this evaluation.
Note that the recommendations that are included in this Paper are only preliminary suggestions.
The entities working through this process in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds are indeed at an
advantage in having already collected and analyzed extensive data and initiating planning and
permitting at the watershed level. It is still important; however, to continue the current
process of stakeholder and public participation (through the Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, etc.) and to work through the process described in US EPA’s 2007
Technical Guidance as a group to ensure all information and views are considered. This
process can indeed proceed more quickly than in a region starting from scratch, but
following this stepwise process can help ensure that appropriate decisions are made based
on the data available and a comprehensive evaluation of all the options is made.

Introduction
In 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued a formal endorsement for
the watershed-based approach to planning in an effort to better address water resource issues.
Based on this endorsement, entities in the Greater Milwaukee Watershed have embraced this
approach and have been developing management and restoration plans on a watershed level. This
paper addresses the efforts to date, identifies decisions to be made, and discusses potential
options for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
The approach outlined in this paper was structured according to the steps identified in the
Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting
Technical Guidance (US EPA 2007). It was felt that use of this established approach would
clearly identify the thought process used to walk through the issues faced in the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds and would help to facilitate discussion with US EPA and the state.
As discussed in the Technical Guidance, a number of factors are involved in selecting a
watershed for a watershed-based permitting approach as well as questions that need to be asked
2

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

to determine the direction of such an approach. US EPA’s Technical Guidance includes an
NPDES Watershed Navigator (the Navigator) to help a group work through a watershed
permitting analytical approach and construct an NPDES watershed framework in a watershed.
The Navigator consists of a series of questions that facilitate analysis of watershed data and
determine how best to structure and manage implementation of the NPDES program in a way
that considers the entire watershed.
Each element addressed by the Navigator is discussed below. These elements include:

Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories – this element focuses on
the types of data needed to conduct an analysis of a watershed-based permitting
approach. An extensive amount of data has been collected and analyzed on
watersheds in this region through efforts associated with the development of the
Watershed Restoration Plans as well as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission’s (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan
(Planning Report No. 50 and Technical Report No. 39) and MMSD’s 2020 Facilities
Plan (Section 201 Plan). Most, if not all, of the important data needed for this effort
has been collected as part of the development of these documents.

Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach – taking the data from
Element 1, this step looks at several ways the data can be analyzed to identify
implementation options. Much of this analysis for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
Rivers has been undertaken as part of the Watershed Restoration Planning process.

Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework – building off of Element 2,
this step discusses potential options in more detail and helps with priority setting.

Each element of the Navigator has a goal, specific activities to be undertaken, and a specific set
of results to help readers make decisions in the remaining elements. This paper will walk through
these elements one by one.
It is important to note that an initial decision on the scale of the watershed-based
permitting approach needs to be made upon moving forward with this effort. One approach
could be focusing on one specific watershed, such as the Menomonee River watershed, while
another approach could be more encompassing, such as including all of the Greater Milwaukee
watersheds in the effort. The flexibility of this approach; however, as well as the fact that a
significant amount of data have already been collected, will allow the Group to move forward at
one scale. If it is determined that this scale is inappropriate, the Group can step back through the
process fairly easily to readjust the scale.

The Navigator Process
The following section walks through each element of the US EPA approach discussed above and
addresses the key questions associated with each element, working through the answers where
possible in light of the specific situation in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
Navigator Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories
Focusing on a watershed of interest, this step includes collecting and sorting available data on
that watershed. Here the data will be evaluated in order to understand conditions in the watershed
3

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

in relation to water quality standards and watershed goals. The Group is at an advantage at this
point because of the extensive data that have been collected as well as the fact that analysis of
these data has been, and continues to be at the watershed level. Focusing on the drivers behind
the desire to pursue this approach will help the Group focus on the most relevant types and
sources of data. It is likely that only minimal additional data will be needed for this effort so this
Paper will not go into great detail on this element. Questions to address are as follows:
Question #1: What types of data should be gathered?
Data to be gathered under this element includes watershed data as well as pollutant source data.
Watershed data includes information on the physical and natural features of the watershed as
well as watershed goals and conditions. Pollutant source data includes data on locations and
characteristics of both point and nonpoint sources.
Much of this data has already been collected, compiled, and analyzed (or is in the process of
being analyzed). These data will be used in Element 2, but some data could also be used in
association with the development of environmental indicators to measure performance (see
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management on page 13, below). As
will be discussed later, it may be possible to use “flow” as an indicator or surrogate for a number
of pollutants. The approach here would be to use watershed-based data to demonstrate that by
controlling flow there is a measurable reduction in pollutant loading. This would be similar to
processes used in TMDLs to address stormwater impacts. Once this linkage can be made, then
flow would be used as the control parameter in the permit. It is anticipated that this should fit
well with current activities in the watershed to address flow via use of low impact development
techniques, stormwater BMPs such as rain gardens and rain barrels, working with nongovernmental organizations, etc.
Question #2: How are gaps in the watershed and source data assessed?
Based on the issues of concern in the selected watershed, the Group will want to focus on the
most relevant types and sources of data applicable to the concern(s). Focusing on these specific
sources and evaluating issues such as the ease of data assess, the source of the data and the
format it is in, and the quality of the data will help identify data gaps or needs for new or
improved data.
Question #3: How is a data inventory organized?
As much of the data already collected on the watersheds in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds
has been incorporated, or is being incorporated into, management or restoration plans, much of
this step has already been achieved. Because of the analysis of this data in these plans it is
assumed that information such as monitoring data referenced in these plans is also in a format
that makes it useful to search or query. Additional data compiled over time should also be
included in the summary of data on the watershed.
Navigator Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach
The next step in this process is taking the data collected through the previous step and analyzing
it so the Group can conduct a “targeted and iterative analysis of the data.” This will allow the
Group to identify potential approaches to the situation in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
Questions to address are discussed below. Options that may be available based on the answers to
each of these questions are included in the call-out boxes along the side of the page.

4

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Question #1: Are there common stressors or sources of pollutants of concern in the watershed?
This element includes not only identifying pollutants
of concern, but also identifying relationships among
OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL
existing NPDES permit, nonpoint sources, and these
ANSWERS TO QUESTION#1
pollutants or stressors of concern that can be addressed
Several urban wet-weather sources
within a watershed framework. The analysis that has
identified
already been performed on water quality data in the

Wet-weather integration
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds has identified a

Indicator development for stormwater
number of parameters of concern including nutrients,
management
sediment, and bacteria
Few common pollutants across sources
For each of the watersheds and subwatersheds in the

Permit synchronization
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, the SEWRPC
Common
stressors unknown because of
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
lack
of
data
(RWQMPU) evaluates the average annual loads of the

Monitoring consortium development
various pollutants of concern for point sources
Several
common sources and stressors
(industrial point sources, SSOs, CSOs) and nonpoint

Continue to Question #2 – additional
sources (urban and rural stormwater runoff) (see Table
watershed-based approaches are
1 as an example). Although not evaluated on a permitpossible
by-permit level, each pollutant of concern is evaluated
in this manner. Similarly to US EPA’s Technical Guidance this approach highlights
commonalities among sources and pollutants for further analysis. (It is important to note for
Table 1. Average Annual Loads of Total Phosphorus in the Menomonee River Watershed
Point Sources

Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ...........
Honey Creek ..........
Lilly Creek .............
Little Menomonee
Creek ...................
Little Menomonee
River ....................
Lower Menomonee
River ..................
North Branch
Menomonee River .
Nor-X-Way
Channel ……..
Underwood Creek ..
Upper Menomonee
River ..................
West Branch
Menomonee River .
Willow Creek .........
Total
Percent of Total
Load

Nonpoint Sources

Industrial
Point
Sources
(pounds)

SSOs
(pounds)

CSOs
(pounds)

Subtotal
(pounds)

Urban
(pounds)

Rural
(pounds)

Subtotal
(pounds)

Total
(pounds)

0
200
0
0

10
10
0
0

0
0
0
0

10
210
0
0

1,490
3,900
1,200
80

50
20
90
350

1,540
3,920
1,290
430

1,550
4,130
1,290
430

360

<10

0

360

3,300

840

4,140

4,500

15,650

550

1,880

18,080

7,180

70

7,250

25,330

0

0

0

0

50

220

270

270

160

0

0

160

630

340

970

1,130

30
1,150

10
<10

0
0

40
1,150

6,350
4,170

270
1,150

6,620
5,320

6,660
6,470

0

0

0

0

370

240

610

610

0

0

0

0

320

430

750

750

17,550

580

1,880

20,010

29,040

4,070

33,110

53,120

33.0

1.1

3.5

37.6

54.7

7.7

62.4

100.0

(SEWRPC 2007 – Technical Report No. 39)

comparison purposes that urban nonpoint sources identified in Table 1 include permitted
5

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

municipal stormwater runoff, which is defined by US EPA as a point source).
Additionally, the Draft Watershed Restoration Plan for the Menomonee River cites issues such
as the fact that stormwater runoff is the largest source of fecal colifom and that eliminating CSOs
and SSOs would not result in water quality improvements. This type of information and data will
be helpful in establishing the levels of control and supporting the use of aggregate limits or
allocations done on a categorical rather than outfall-by-outfall basis. This is similar to the
process used in TMDLs to address diffuse sources that may be controlled via BMPs where the
assumption is that use of BMPs on a system-wide basis will reduce loadings.
Question #2: Are pollutants and stressors common to sources in the watershed best addressed at
a watershed level?
This question is important as it evaluates the
OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL
pollutants of concern that were identified in
ANSWERS TO QUESTION#2
Question #1, above, and evaluates if they could be
addressed at a watershed scale. For a watershedCommon pollutants or stressors are not
based approach the pollutants of concern should
best addressed at the watershed level
have more than just localized effects, but can be

Permit synchronization
addressed at a watershed level.
Common pollutants and stressors lend
This question must be answered in two parts: (1) is
themselves to being addressed at a
the pollutant an issue watershed-wide where there is watershed level
potential for cumulative effects from multiple

Continue to Question #3 – additional
sources and (2) is the form of the pollutant the same
watershed-based approaches are
possible
or can different forms be converted to the same
form for common measurement (e.g., phosphorus,
nitrogen, oxygen demand).
As opposed to individual point sources with localized effects that could be addressed through
individual permits, where the aggregate effect of the point sources lead to more far-field issues, a
watershed permitting approach can be helpful. This is already being addressed at the watershed
scale in the Menomonee River Watershed. As seen in Tables 1, 2, and 3, the bulk of the loading
of phosphorus, fecal coliform, and total suspended solids in this watershed come from a limited
number of sources, but predominantly come from urban stormwater. Coverage of the eight
communities under this type of permit allows evaluating these pollutants in a more
comprehensive manner.
Evaluating the connection between these discharges can help identify the pollutants of concern
upon which to optimally place focus through a watershed-based approach. Using a watershed
approach for these types of pollutants will also allow the Group to prioritize controls based on
type of source, loading, and location and apply resources where there will be the greatest
potential for positive impact.

6

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Table 2. Average Annual Loads of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in the Menomonee River Watershed
Point Sources

Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ...................
Honey Creek ...............
Lilly Creek ......................
Little Menomonee Creek .
Little Menomonee River .
Lower Menomonee River
North Branch
Menomonee River .....
Nor-X-Way Channel ......
Underwood Creek ........
Upper Menomonee River
West Branch Menomonee
River .....
Willow Creek .................

Nonpoint Sources

Industrial
Point
Sources
(trillions
of cells)

SSOs
(trillions
of cells)

CSOs
(trillions
of cells)

Subtotal
(trillions
of cells)

Urban
(trillions
of cells)

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

6.07
9.01
0.00
0.00
0.52
604.24
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,727.39
0.00

6.07
9.01
0.00
0.00
0.52
2,331.63
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
16.33
4.65
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00

Rural
(trillions
of cells)

Subtotal
(trillions
of cells)

Total
(trillions
of cells)

223.75
2,342.61
199.31
65.43
2,097.81
4,067.91
9.30

0.46
0.14
1.25
84.91
105.28
0.28
7.82

224.21
2,342.75
200.56
150.34
2,203.09
4,068.19
17.12

230.28
2,351.76
200.56
150.34
2,203.61
6,399.82
17.12

0.00
16.33
4.65
0.00

256.06
3,454.09
1,274.47
62.41

48.78
1.67
79.98
16.80

304.84
3,455.76
1,354.45
79.21

304.84
3,472.09
1,359.10
79.21

0.00

0.00

58.69

45.74

104.43

104.43

Total

0.00

640.82

1,727.39

2,368.21

14,111.84

393.11

14,504.95

16,873.16

Percent of Total Load

0.0

3.8

10.2

14.0

83.7

2.3

86.0

100.0

(SEWRPC 2007 – Technical Report No. 39)

Table 3. Average Annual Loads of Total Suspended Solids in the Menomonee River Watershed
Point Sources

Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ....................
Honey Creek ...................
Lilly Creek ..................
Little Menomonee Creek .
Little Menomonee River ..
Lower Menomonee River
North Branch
Menomonee River .......
Nor-X-Way Channel .......
Underwood Creek ...........
Upper Menomonee River
West Branch Menomonee
River .......
Willow Creek .................
Total
Percent of Total Load

Nonpoint Sources

Industrial
Point
Sources
(pounds)

SSOs
(pounds)

CSOs
(pounds)

Subtotal
(pounds)

Urban
(pounds)

0
800
0
0
2,530
51,660
0

320
470
0
0
30
31,670
0

0
0
0
0
0
182,960
0

320
1,270
0
0
2,560
266,290
0

689,190
1,874,860
666,000
58,630
1,976,270
4,001,330
27,660

280
90
3,380
0

0
860
240
0

0
0
0
0

280
950
3,620
0

0

0

0

Rural
(pounds)

Subtotal
(pounds)

Total
(pounds)

8,000
2,400
53,720
205,820
437,140
10,180
117,390

697,190
1,877,260
719,720
264,450
2,413,410
4,011,510
145,050

697,510
1,878,530
719,720
264,450
2,415,970
4,277,800
145,050

478,790
3,031,420
2,504,060
232,070

351,000
46,540
462,670
103,580

829,790
3,077,960
2,966,730
335,650

830,070
3,078,910
2,970,350
335,650

0

197,990

151,790

349,780

349,780

58,740

33,590

182,960

275,290

15,738,270

1,950,230

17,688,500

17,963,790

0.3

0.2

1.0

1.5

87.6

10.9

98.5

100.0

(SEWRPC 2007 – Technical Report No. 39)

7

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Question #3: What are critical environmental conditions for the pollutants or stressors of
concern?
As defined in the Technical Guidance, critical
OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL
environmental conditions are the environmental
ANSWERS TO QUESTION #3
conditions in the waterbody where controls designed
to protect those conditions will ensure attainment of
Critical environmental conditions
water quality standards and goals for all other
unknown because of insufficient data
conditions. These conditions could include a

Monitoring consortium development
combination of factors (e.g., stream flow,
Critical conditions are well defined, but
temperature) and might actually occur infrequently.
vary by pollutant
Depending on the pollutant or stressor of concern

Consider narrowing the scope of the
and the sources of those pollutants and stressors,
watershed analysis
critical conditions might occur during low stream

Continue to Question #4 – additional
flow, runoff events, rainfall events, or hot and dry
watershed-based approaches possible
periods.
Critical conditions are well defined and
consistent for pollutants of concern

The US EPA Technical Guidance suggests

Wet-weather integration (if wet weather
reviewing the applicable water quality standards or
conditions are critical)
written water quality goals for the waterbody for

Indicator development for watershedbased stormwater management (if wetinformation about critical conditions. The SEWRPC
weather conditions are critical)
has already analyzed previous monitoring data for

Continue to Question #4 – additional
the Milwaukee area watersheds which is
watershed-based approaches are
documented in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No.
possible
50 and Technical Report No. 39). The Report
developed water quality summary statistics for 106
water quality assessment points within the study area, evaluating compliance with water quality
standards/criteria.
The Technical Guidance also recommends examining the nature of the pollutants or stressors,
their impacts, and the potential sources to ensure an understanding of critical conditions. The
SEWRPC RWQMPU also evaluates wet and dry-weather loading to local waterbodies. For each
of the watersheds, daily average loads of six pollutants—total phosphorus, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform bacteria, total nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand, and copper, were
estimated for both wet-weather and dry-weather conditions for one or two sites based upon flow
and water quality data. For all watersheds, the loads detected during wet-weather periods were
considerably higher than the loads detected during dry-weather periods.
Identifying wet weather as the critical condition for each of the pollutants of concern in the
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds is helpful in identifying the level of complexity of the issues in
this region. Based on the data available there is a clear linkage between pollutants (bacteria,
phosphorus, and suspended solids) and urban stormwater. As outlined in the box above, there are
several options available, which will be discussed in more depth, below.
Question #4: In what quantities or to what degree do point and nonpoint sources contribute
pollutants or stressors in the watershed?

8

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

This step requires that, after defining critical conditions in the watershed, available data be
analyzed to determine whether point and nonpoint source contributions of pollutants of concern
at critical conditions have been quantified through monitoring or have been modeled.
As discussed above, contributions of pollutants of
concern have been analyzed for both point and
nonpoint sources in the Milwaukee area watersheds.
This has included evaluating both monitoring data as
well as assessing instream water quality conditions
through modeling existing (year 2000), planned (year
2020), and recommended RWQMPU conditions.
As explained in the Technical Guidance,
understanding the relationship between point and
nonpoint sources is important to understanding if
point sources in the watershed contribute enough of
the pollutant load, relative to nonpoint sources, to
warrant a watershed-based approach. Although there
is significant information available to make this
determination, a rough estimate of relative
contributions is all that is necessary to make this
assessment. For example, because urban stormwater
is a significant source of pollutants for the parameters
of concern addressed above in Tables 1, 2 and 3, as
are industrial point sources for phosphorus, point
sources can be identified as significant contributors of
certain pollutants in the Menomonee River
watershed.
Question #5: How are point and nonpoint sources
related spatially and temporally?
As stated in the US EPA Technical Guidance,
consideration should be given to defining the spatial
and temporal relationships among contributing sources.
Understanding relationships among sources is
especially important for implementing a successful
trading program, if this approach is ultimately pursued
by the Group. For pollutants with watershed-wide or
regional effects, contributions at one point in a
watershed are not necessarily equivalent to
contributions at another point in the watershed in terms
of their overall impact on the watershed.
The Technical Guidance provides the example of a lake
that has experienced nuisance aquatic plant growth and
dissolved oxygen sags resulting from nutrient enriched
water. Total phosphorus has been identified as a
9

OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
QUESTION#4
Relative contributions unknown because of
insufficient data

Monitoring consortium development

Watershed management plan development

TMDL development and implementation
support

Statewide rotating basin planning
Pollutants predominantly contributed by
nonpoint sources

State-approved watershed management
plan development and implementation

Section 319 nonpoint source management
program and watershed planning
Point sources are significant contributors*

NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis

Water quality trading

Permit synchronization

Continue to Question #5 – additional
watershed-based approaches are possible

OPTIONS
ON POTENTIAL
*Note that “point
sources”BASED
as defined
here by EPA include
permitted urban stormwater
sources.
ANSWERS TO QUESTION#5
Spatial and temporal relationships
unknown because of insufficient data

NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis

Monitoring consortium development

TMDL development and implementation
support

Statewide rotating basin planning

Permit synchronization
Spatial and temporal relationships well
defined

NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis

Water quality trading

Permit synchronization

Statewide rotating basin planning

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

pollutant of concern. Nine sources of phosphorus have been shown to contribute loads to the
basin. These sources are along the river that feeds the lake. One of the sources, a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), is a permitted point source upstream of the lake, but 20 miles
downstream of an irrigation return flow to the river. A farm, an agricultural nonpoint source, is
the only source discharging phosphorus to the irrigation return ditch. In addition, there is an
agriculture diversion that diverts 75 percent of the river flow between the farm and the POTW.
Total phosphorus discharges from the farm and the POTW would not have the same relative
impact on the downstream lake. First, the phosphorus is likely to be in different forms—soluble
from the POTW and non-soluble from the farm. Second, the distance between the farm and the
POTW and the significant agricultural diversion between the two sources mean that even
phosphorus discharges from the two sources that are in the same form would not have equal
impact on the lake. The regulatory authority would need to quantify the relationship between the
effects of a pound of phosphorus discharged by the farm and a pound of phosphorus discharged
by the POTW to determine an approach for effectively managing water quality in the lake. It
might be helpful to use equations and models that have been developed to estimate the decay
rate, or attenuation, of water quality pollutants to account for spatial relationships in calculating
the relative contributions of various sources in a watershed.
Answering the question of how point and nonpoint sources are related in the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds will, of course, depend on the scale chosen for the project. Urban stormwater
permittees (covered under the WPDES permitting program) cover a vast majority of the
watersheds. The location of other point sources, such as CSOs, SSOs, or industrial sources vary
by watershed. Additionally, there may be temporal variability with other sources, such as from
agricultural sources, or temperature impacts on pollutants during warmer summer months. Much
of the monitoring and modeling data already exists in the SEWRPC plans and will be utilized in
the upcoming watershed plans. Further discussion of the scale of this approach will be helpful at
this point. The approaches could include addressing only one watershed (i.e., the Menomonee or
the Kinnicknnic River watershed), assess all watersheds in the Greater Milwaukee area; or
consider all watersheds at the same time, but address them each separately, but include
coordination between the watersheds given they all ultimately impact Lake Michigan.
Navigator Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework
There are a range of options possible for a watershed-based approach. Ultimately, the option that
is chosen for the region will be based on the condition of the selected watershed and specific
pollutants of concern and watershed goals identified by the Group. The Group may also choose
to pursue all or a subset of these approaches according to stakeholder priorities and the comfort
level of the permitting authority. The questions below walk through the range of possible
implementation options.
Navigator Element 3 - Question #1: What are the implementation options to consider in
constructing an NPDES watershed framework?
Although an NPDES watershed framework should focus primarily on programs and approaches
directly related to NPDES program implementation and activities, other water programs
influence NPDES implementation and local water quality and may also be included in this
approach. EPA has identified a number of implementation options to consider under an NPDES
watershed-based approach including:

10

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL










NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed-basis
Water Quality Trading
Wet-Weather Integration
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management
TMDL Development and Implementation Support
Monitoring Consortium Development
Permit Synchronization
Statewide Rotating Basin Planning Approach
State-Approved Watershed Management Plan Development and Implementation
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program and Watershed Planning
Source Water Protection Plan Development and Implementation.

As stated previously, the watershed-based approach is very flexible. Approaches that have been
used elsewhere can be modified to meet the local requirements, the local issues, and the comfort
level of the Group as well as the permitting authority. The Group might choose only one or two
of these approaches for inclusion into the approach for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, or
the Group could design a comprehensive framework that incorporates a suite of these
approaches. Below several approaches are identified and discussed further that may be of most
interest to stakeholders in the Milwaukee area and most applicable to the specific situation in the
region.
NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed Basis
As the Group walks through each of the steps identified above the associated questions could
either be answered or possibly initial thoughts or ideas might be facilitated. Because of the
amount of work that has already been achieved collecting and analyzing data on the watersheds
in the region, conditions in the watershed are well understood. It is also known that there are
common stressors or pollutants of concern among sources in the watersheds and that certain
point sources most notably urban stormwater sources have a significant impact in the watersheds.
Given this scenario, developing and issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis is an
appropriate approach for addressing point source loads of one or more pollutants. As stated
earlier, in cases where there are multiple sources contributing the same pollutants and those
pollutants have primarily far-field or additive effects, a watershed-based permit is appropriate.
The types of permits that might be considered for a watershed will vary depending on the
specific conditions and types of dischargers within a watershed (again, this would depend on the
scale of the project – choose one specific watershed such as the Menomonee River watershed –
or scale the project up to the encompass the Greater Milwaukee area). The permit types that are
available under this approach include coordinated individual permits, integrated municipal
permits, and multisource watershed-based permits. Each of these permit types is discussed in
greater detail below.

11

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Coordinated Individual Permits - This permitting approach is the closest to traditional NPDES
permitting in that each discharger receives an
individual permit. The difference is that water quality
Watershed characteristics leading to
based effluent limits (WQBELs) and other conditions
consideration of this option: common
of coordinated individual permits (such as
stressors or sources of pollutants of
concern; critical environmental conditions
monitoring) are developed using a holistic analysis of
are defined; point and nonpoint source
the watershed conditions rather than being established
contributions are understood, at least for
to ensure attainment of water quality standards on a
the pollutant(s) of concern; point sources
permit-by-permit basis. Often where permits are
contribute a notable portion of the pollutant
developed on a permit-by-permit basis assumptions
load or there are significant differences
are made regarding other sources that are not realistic
among the loadings contributed by various
such as zero contribution of pollutants or zero
point sources, or there are a number of
background loadings. Given the extensive monitoring
point sources with similar types of
and modeling of watersheds such as the Menomonee
discharges.
and Kinnickinnic, this holistic analysis is (or soon will
be) complete to serve as a basis for this approach.
With this approach, the individual permits are designed to meet watershed-specific goals (e.g.,
comprehensive watershed monitoring, nutrient reduction). The permitting authority may re-issue
permits to single dischargers or modify existing single discharger permits. To strengthen the
coordination among individual permits, expiration and reissuance or effective dates should also
be synchronized. By synchronizing permit issuance it ensures that the data used to make permit
decisions are consistent and the data collected will also be consistent across the permits and the
watershed.
Integrated Municipal NPDES Permit Coverage - This approach is most often applicable in cases
where all municipal discharges are under the ownership of a single entity. In cases where there is
single ownership the permitting authority may bundle a number of point source permit
requirements for a municipality (POTWs, combined sewer overflows [CSOs], biosolids,
pretreatment, and stormwater, including municipally owned industrial activities such as public
works and utility yards) into a single permit. In cases where the treatment plants, stormwater,
CSOs (if applicable), and other municipally controlled point source activities are all under single
ownership, the permitting authority could consider one permit that covers and integrates all
NPDES requirements. Ideally, these activities would take place within the boundaries of the
same watershed. This approach may reduce the administrative burden for both the permittee and
permitting authority (e.g., one application, one public notice and public hearing, one compliance
report) and allow the permitting authority to develop permit conditions (limitations and
monitoring requirements) that specifically address existing watershed goals and watershed
management plans. In the case of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, this may still be done
instead of a permit with a single owner, there would be multiple owners and they would be
considered co-permittees under a single permit with permit language clearly delineating
compliance liability (e.g., language in the Neuse River NPDES permit) (NCDENR 2004). The
permit conditions would be developed using the same process as for an integrated municipal
permit, but the issuance of the permit would be done differently to recognize the different
owners.
Multi-source Watershed-based Permit - This type of permitting approach is also a single permit
and would cover multiple sources included in the same watershed, watershed plan, or TMDL. It
12

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

would allow several point sources in a watershed to apply for and obtain permit coverage under
the same permit. This type of permit might be appropriate in situations where a watershed plan,
such as one developed for the Menomonee River or Kinnicknick River watersheds, identifies the
need to address a specific pollutant(s). A watershed plan might include agreed-upon controls
necessary to achieve watershed goals. Stakeholders can then identify point sources that would be
logical to group under a single permit.
Some permitting authorities have chosen to issue a single watershed-based permit that
supplements or overlays the existing individual permits for the covered facilities. This approach
allows the permitting authority to focus effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, trading
provisions, and other special permit conditions that are developed on a watershed basis in a
single permit and clearly links the permitted facilities in a way that simply incorporating
watershed-based permit conditions into individual permits does not accomplish. The permit
would identify all point sources that have agreed to the controls and the individual specific
requirements for each point source. An example is a permit that includes control requirements
for nutrients issued to all POTWs in the watershed and requires specific nutrient reductions that
reflect agreed-upon goals and, possibly, trades. This same approach could be used for multiple
types of discharges such as POTWs, stormwater, CSOs, etc. to address the same pollutant such
as TSS or nutrients. This permit might be issued in addition to the existing individual permits
and, if so, would include limitations or controls to address only the watershed-specific common
pollutant or pollutants. Other pollutants would continue to be addressed through each facility’s
individual permit.
Wet-Weather Integration
Wet-weather integration is an approach to address wet-weather discharges in a holistic manner to
provide for greater efficiency, more comprehensive planning, less redundancy among permitting
requirements, and better water quality outcomes. It is focused on urban areas that include
permitted wastewater treatment facilities and sewer systems,
such as that in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
Watershed characteristics leading
The major drivers of wet weather integration are all found in
the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds – multiple programs driven
by wet weather events, shared common pollutants between the
program, and hydraulic connectivity of the systems. Wetweather integration can include not only WPDES programs,
but also other issues such as non-point source discharges,
which are also an issue in the region. As addressed in US
EPA’s Technical Guidance, wet-weather integration includes:

to consideration of this option:
identified critical conditions occur
during wet weather; predominantly
urban or urbanizing watershed, or
watershed with multiple wet-weather
problems competing for the same
resources.

Unifying individual WPDES permits and programs, and consolidating and
streamlining their overlapping requirements

Coordinating with water quality standards programs and enforcement and compliance
programs across an urban area (municipal footprint)

Coordinating with the development and implementation of TMDLs

13

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

Considering the water quality goals and objectives of existing watershed management
plans and the resources needed to address pollutant loads and setting priorities

Planning and developing solutions across all municipal wet-weather programs to
achieve the best environmental benefits at a reasonable or lower cost.

This approach could be tied together with an integrated wet-weather permit approach as is
discussed above (“NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed Basis”).
A guiding principle for the integration of wet-weather programs is reducing the volume of water
entering sewer systems (sanitary, combined, and storm sewers) for example focusing on
infiltration reuse, and evapotransporation techniques rather than traditional stormwater controls.
Methods to reduce water volume through this approach are less focused on end of pipe treatment
and more on initiatives such as the reduction of inflow and infiltration, natural infiltration (low
impact development, LID), and water conservation. Entities, such as MMSD, are already
encouraging the use of LID, in recognition of the principles of wet-weather integration.
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management
Excessive stormwater runoff is often the cause for aquatic life impairment because of the
relationship among stormwater runoff volume, pollutant loadings, and habitat degradation. The
connections between these stressors are very complex, posing a unique challenge for effectively
managing stormwater and tracking progress toward water quality standards attainment. US EPA
and several states have begun using stormwater/hydrologic targets, or indicators, for use in
developing and implementing stormwater TMDLs. Indicators might include a percent reduction
in annual surface runoff volume or a percent reduction in peak runoff rates for a specific design
storm. Using stormwater/hydrologic indicators is based on the premise that the hydrologic
condition of a watershed where streams have aquatic life
Watershed characteristics
impairments related to stormwater is a surrogate for the pollutant
leading to consideration of
and non-pollutant stressors contributing to those impairments.

this option: multiple sources
of pollutant loads; critical
conditions identified and
occur during wet weather.

For aquatic life impairments, there often is not one specific
pollutant of concern; instead, the impairment may be caused by a
mix of pollutants and physical alterations to the stream system. In
Vermont, TMDLs use stormwater as it represents a combination of
stressors. The use of this surrogate has the primary benefit of addressing the physical impacts to
the stream channel caused by stormwater runoff such as sediment release from channel erosion
and scour from increased flows. These physical alterations to the stream are substantial
contributors to the aquatic life impairment. Also, reductions in stormwater runoff volume will
help restore diminished base flow (increased groundwater recharge), another aquatic life stressor.
As described in US EPA’s Technical Guidance, calculating percent impervious cover or runoff
volume reduction as a single categorical stormwater loading promotes implementation using an
adaptive, watershed-based approach. Consequently, a watershed-based stormwater permit could
be an effective mechanism for implementing this phased program for attaining water quality
standards. The permit could require development and implementation of the phased BMP
program and periodic plan updates. The monitoring program required by the permit might
include stormwater effluent monitoring, where appropriate, but also could focus on cooperative
14

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

ambient monitoring (e.g., a monitoring consortium) by the regulated community. The ambient
monitoring could include biological monitoring, with follow-up stressor identification analysis to
verify the appropriateness of selected BMPs.
Permit Synchronization
This implementation option focuses on coordinating expiration and reissuance of existing
NPDES permits within a specified watershed. As discussed in US EPA’s Technical Guidance,
permit synchronization has several benefits including coordination of NPDES support activities
such as biological and water quality surveys, industrial pretreatment inspections, and compliance
inspections that provide up-to-date information at the time of permit issuance. An important
benefit of this approach is that watershed-based needs, such as monitoring requirements or
wasteload allocation (WLAs), are reflected equitably in all
permits even within the standard individual permit
Watershed characteristics
approach, because all permits in a watershed are being
leading to consideration of this
considered simultaneously. Permit synchronization is
option: some overlap in pollutants
discharged by sources within the
currently being done in a number of states and these states
watershed that present the
have found the process to be very beneficial (see North
opportunity to achieve efficiencies
Carolina Case Study; US EPA 2007).
by simultaneously analyzing
watershed data for the same
pollutant(s).

The feasibility of permit synchronization as an
implementation option might depend the types of permits
(e.g., general or individual) currently issued to dischargers
in the watershed, the current timing of permit reissuance in the watershed, and determining if it is
necessary to delay issuance of some permits to synchronize permit issuance on a watershed
basis. It also is important to determine if all stakeholders are in support of the synchronization
concept and the process to achieve synchronization.
In the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, there are a number of permittees including MMSD
(whose discharge permit is currently up for renewal), municipal stormwater permittees (such as
those covered under the municipal stormwater watershed based permit in the Menomonee River
watershed, which expires in 2012), and numerous other individual permittees. These permits
separately will need to address the pollutants of concern. Given this fact there may be
opportunities to gain efficiency while also addressing watershed-based problems. In order to
address these watershed-wide problems it is necessary to look at the watershed in total and make
decisions on a watershed scale rather than outfall pipe by outfall pipe.
State-Approved Watershed Management Plan Development and Implementation
Watershed management planning, such as currently being done in the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds, is an iterative process for documenting watershed
goals; known, suspected, and potential pollutant sources and
Watershed characteristics
loadings; potential management strategies; and evaluation
leading to consideration of this
option: multiple sources of
tools. Through the region’s watershed-based management
pollutants or causes of
plans, stakeholders have and continue to formulate goals,
environmental degradation; point
identify any additional data needs, and evaluate potential
and nonpoint contributions
pollutant control strategies. The information in the watershed
understood; local interest in
plans can serve as the foundation for implementation options

protecting high quality watersheds.

15

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

under the watershed framework (such as the Screening Alternatives identified in the RWQMPU).
Navigator Element 3 - Question #2: How should priorities for implementing the components of
an NPDES watershed framework be set?
There are a number of approaches available to stakeholders in the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds within a WPDES watershed framework for the pollutants of concern that have been
identified. As discussed further in the Technical Guidance, a scoring system can be used to
prioritize initiatives upon which to place the most focus. This approach is one option for
attempting to provide a more objective approach for determining whether the overall process is
appropriate. There may be other ways for making the same determination.
The Technical Guidance outlines the first step in the suggested approach as determining whether
and how to group implementation options for priority setting. For the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds two initial groupings were considered in an example prioritization (see Figure 1)
including (1) watershed analysis/pollutant source analysis and (2) permitting. As so much data
collection and analysis has already occurred for the Greater Milwaukee Watershed, watershed
analysis and pollutant source analysis were grouped to reduce redundancy. Had this level of
effort not already occurred in the region, a more intensive analysis would be required to
determine additional data needs, etc. These groupings represent the major activities that could be
undertaken in implementing an NPDES watershed approach that focuses on watershed-based
permitting as the primary implementation option. Grouping implementation options in this
manner allows assessment of the implementation options based on a clear methodology for
decision-making.
Once potential implementation options are listed and grouped, the Group should consider
establishing criteria for setting priorities and determining the manner in which the criteria will be
used to evaluate potential options or groups of options. Criteria could consider factors such as
environmental impact, availability of resources, and current planning priorities. It is at this point
in developing a watershed framework that the Group might need to look beyond technical
feasibility and environmental impact to include administrative criteria (e.g., availability of
funding) to set priorities among the possible implementation options.

16

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

One screening level method for priority setting is to develop a scoring process for all potential
implementation options. For example, a scoring scale from one to three for a series of criteria
could be used to evaluate each implementation option on how it compares to each criterion. The
IMPLEMENTATION OPTION GROUPING
EXAMPLE
Watershed/Pollutant Source Analysis

Additional watershed data collection

Sufficient data collected for now – 1 point

Monitoring consortium development

This could be an option – 2 points

TMDL development support

No priority TMDLs currently – 1 point

Indicator development and tracking for
watershed-based stormwater
management

Variety of pollutants linked to flow – 3 points

Permitting

TMDL implementation support

Water quality trading

Wet-weather integration

Watershed-based multi-source permit

Permit synchronization

No priority TMDLs currently – 1 point
Trading of interest to group – 3 points
Of interest to the group – 3 points
Coordinated integrated permit or multi-source
watershed based permit – 3 points
Of interest to the group – 3 points

Figure 1 – Implementation option scoring

criteria can be weighted, with those most important to stakeholders receiving a higher weighting
factor than others. Implementation options with the highest weighted total scores would be
initially identified as potentially higher priority approaches. Such a procedure does not provide
mathematical precision in ranking potential implementation options. It simply helps stakeholders
get a general sense of which approach seems to best fit the Group’s multiple and, sometimes,
competing priorities. The Group could use the results of such an analysis to further refine its
selection of the highest priority projects or approaches.

Building the Permit
Assuming that the point sources in the Greater Milwaukee Watershed decide to move forward
with some form of a watershed-based permit, there are specific conditions that must be
considered and included in any type of NPDES permit. Specifically:

Technology-based effluent limitations (TBEL)

Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBEL)

Numeric effluent limits vs. BMPs as effluent limits

Monitoring and reporting requirements

The regulations require the permitting authority to issue permits requiring the permittee to meet
permit limits. The regulations further require the permitting authority to include effluent limits in
17

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

the permit and that these limits be based on technology-based standards or water quality-based
standards if the limits derived from technology-based standards are not stringent enough to meet
water quality standards. The regulations require the NPDES permitting authority to develop
limits for all outfalls (40 CFR §122.45(a)) and include the applicable technology-based limits (40
CFR §122.44(a)); if the technology-based effluent limits are not stringent enough to meet the
applicable water quality standards then the permitting authority must include more stringent
limits (40 CFR §122.44(d)). In setting the limits, the permitting authority is expected to set
numeric limits whenever “feasible.” In cases where it is infeasible to set numeric effluent limits,
the permitting authority may establish BMPs that the permittee must meet (40 CFR §122.44(k)).
All permits must include monitoring and reporting requirements for any pollutants for which the
permitting authority has established limits in the permit. This is so the permittee may
demonstrate compliance.
The permitting regulations provide flexibility regarding the process for determining the
appropriate limitations. In cases where the limitations are set to meet water quality standards
(water quality-based effluent limitations), it is possible to set aggregate limits or limits that are
based on trading allocations. This provides flexibility to prioritize or focus pollutant control
efforts on specific areas. The distinction here is that there will be controls established for all
discharges, but the controls will not be uniform, rather they will be coordinated and to some
degree dependent on the control at other outfalls. This approach was used in the Neuse River
Compliance Association permit and approved by EPA Region 4. The permit considers the total
discharge of all the POTWs in the association that discharge to the Neuse River Watershed and
sets compliance based on the aggregate allocation. If compliance is not achieved for the
aggregate discharge limit, then individual allocations are considered.
Many of the discharges that need to be controlled are discharges due to wet weather events and
are best handled by BMPs. US EPA has issued many guidance manuals and policies regarding
wet weather impacts and how to address wet weather issues in permits. This BMP approach is
consistent with US EPA guidance for addressing non-continuous discharges. Specifically, the
2002 Wayland and Hanlon memo, “Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements
Based on Those WLAs” and the 1996 memo from Robert Perciasepe, “Interim Permitting
Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits” explain that
BMPs are preferred when discharges “are highly variable in frequency and duration and are not
easily characterized.” The Perciasepe memo goes on to state, “only in rare cases will it be
feasible or appropriate to establish numeric limits.” Due to the nature of the stormwater
discharges – variable frequency, duration and volume, and unpredictable as far as location –
there is no clear way to arrive at a numeric effluent limit. Because it is infeasible to calculate a
numeric limit, BMPs are required in the permit as the effluent limitations (see 40 CFR
§122.44(k)). This BMP approach is also consistent with 40 CFR §122.45(e)(1).
In order to include flexibility in the permit, the Fact Sheet will need to be written to clearly
explain how the permit is consistent with the regulations and also explain how the limitations
meet both technology and water quality-based requirements. The watershed restoration plans will
be very important for this part of the process. The watershed restoration plans will be used to
demonstrate where control is needed and how the control will ensure water quality standards are
being addressed.
18

January 20, 2010

White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting Primer
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

References
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 2004. Permit to Discharge
Wastewater Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – The Neuse River
Compliance Association and Its Co-Permittee Members.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/00001nrcapermit-pt1mod200401.pdf
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2007. A Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning Report No. 50 and
Technical Report No. 39. http://www.sewrpc.org/waterqualityplan/chapters.asp.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2009. A Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Plan Summary.
http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/planningprogramreport/pr050_summary_water_quality_plan_greater_mke_watersheds.pdf.
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust. 2009. Draft Watershed Restoration Plans for the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
http://www.swwtwater.org/home/documents.cfm.
US EPA. 2003. Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permitting Implementation Guidance. EPA 833-B-03-004.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershedpermitting_finalguidance.pdf
US EPA. 2007. Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permitting Technical Guidance. EPA 833-B-07-004.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershed_techguidance.pdf
US EPA. 2007. Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study – Neuse River Watershed, North
Carolina. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wq_casestudy_factsht11.pdf

19

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 8C

Sweetwater Trust
Water Quality Trading Subcommittee
Policy Recommendations (3-2-10 draft)
By Melissa Scanlan, Committee Chair
I.

Overview of Committee Work

The Sweetwater Trust Water Quality Trading Subcommittee invited speakers
representing the Wisconsin DNR, environmental groups, and municipal groups to teach
three seminars that provided an overview on water quality trading. 1 From these
presentations, we gained an understanding of the history of water quality trading in
Wisconsin, which is summarized below. We also learned about a variety of policy issues
that require analysis and sound decisions in order to create cost-effective trading
programs that will have measurable improvements in water quality. We have identified
those issues below, and where possible, provided a recommendation on policy direction.
II.

Wisconsin’s Experience with Water Quality Trading

In 1997, Wisconsin’s Legislature created Act 27, which allowed water quality trading
through a DNR-administered pilot project. 2 This state law needed to be consistent with
the Federal Clean Water Act in a variety of ways; the DNR determined the program
should include:


The trading area must be restricted to the watershed;
Nutrients (N and P) and sediment and other oxygen-related pollutants are
the preferred pollutants for trading;
Credits can only be generated for reductions greater than regulation or
TMDL baselines; 3

The state law set up a DNR pilot project that allows a WPDES permitee to discharge
pollutants above regulated levels if it reached an agreement with a point or non point
source to reduce pollution in another part of the watershed. The trade would need a
broker to facilitate and monitor the trade. The trade would also need to be limited to the
same pollutant or water quality standard, improve water quality, have a contract term
that did not exceed five years, and involve a watershed that is impaired and includes both
agricultural and municipal point and non point sources. 4
Three pilot study areas emerged in the Red Cedar River Watershed, the Fox and Wolf
River Basins, and the Upper and Lower Rock River Basins. From these pilot areas, only
one trade occurred between a single POTW and agricultural non-point source in the Red
1

Mary Anne Loundes presented for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Jamie Saul presented
for Midwest Environmental Advocates, and Paul Kent presented for the Municipal Environmental Group.
2
S. 283.84, Wis. Stats.
3
Mary Anne Loundes, WDNR, powerpoint presentation, April 2009.
4
S. 283.84, Wis. Stats.

Cedar River. In this situation, the POTW paid a clearly-economical $1.84 for each
pound of phosphorus removed by No-Till planting and Conservation Tillage, two
methods that are easy to verify with drive-by monitoring by the local Land Conservation
Department. 5
Despite the lack of trades, the DNR and its study groups learned about the impediments
and drivers to water quality trading, and the DNR has developed the following findings:
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

III.

Most wastewater treatment plants can more economically meet an effluent
limit of 1 mg/l phosphorus through plant upgrades than through trading.
For trading to be effective, a broker, such as the County Land Conservation
Department or the Department, should assume the administrative costs. The
broker will need a source of funds to function in this capacity.
Trading is more likely to be economical if the phosphorus load to be traded is
relatively small.
The effluent limit of 1 mg/l phosphorus is not an adequate driver to support
trading in most instances. A TMDL, performance standard or water quality
based limit is needed to elicit interest based primarily on cost considerations.
An agreed-upon set of tools is needed to quantify phosphorus reduction loads
from nonpoint sources. 6

Recommendations for Overall Goals of a Water Quality Trading Program

The Sweetwater Trust Water Quality Trading Subcommittee has discussed and reached a
consensus that the overall goals of any water quality trading program should include the
following three elements:
1. Effectiveness
 Measurable water quality improvement with time Improvements should be
at least as great as with the status quo, and account for uncertainty as well
as secondary benefits
2. Transparency
 Trading agreement containing essential information, such as credit ratios
and trade partners, is completed and made available for public comment
prior to DNR approval, either as part of the WPDES permit when the draft
permit is released for public comment or as part of a draft modified permit
 Water quality data is collected and made publicly available
3. Enforceability
 WPDES Permitees retain enforceable permits with binding effluent
limitations and other conditions that reflect the trade

5

http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/pt/. The WDNR reports that this trade cost $58,000, and removed 31,500 pounds
of phosphorus.
6
http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/pt/.

2

IV.

Faithfulness to the overall CWA structure is assured (compliance with
water quality standards still the goal; no backsliding on water quality
based effluent limits; no degradation of high-quality waters)

Water Quality Trading Policy Recommendations

In addition to incorporating the overall goals (above) into a trading program, the Water
Quality Trading Subcommittee recommends the following policies should be considered
in development of a water quality trading program in the watersheds of concern for the
Sweetwater Trust:
1. Trading Area - The trading area must be defined, and would be
restricted to the watershed or area with an approved TMDL. 7
Watershed should be defined by DNR rules to be an area that is
sufficiently large enough to supply trading partners, but sufficiently small
enough to ensure the trades are having a quantifiable water quality
impact.
2. Pollutants of Choice - Nutrients (N and P) and sediment and other
oxygen-related pollutants are the preferred pollutants for trading
because these pollutants have less localized toxic effects. 8
3. Same Pollutants – Trades would generally only be allowed for the
same pollutants or water quality standards; an exception would be
where adequate scientific information exists to establish and correlate
impacts on water quality between different oxygen-related pollutants. 9
4. Written Agreements and Transparency – Prior to the DNR approving
a trade, there must be a written agreement between the buyer and the
seller containing all essential terms that is made available for public
comment. The agreement should be attached to the WPDES permit
and referenced within.
5. Trade duration – The goal should be to establish duration of trade
agreements and individual credits that reflect the best science and fit
the administrative structure. Current law, i.e., the Wisconsin pilot
program statute, sec. 283.84, Wis. Stats., limits the duration to 5
years, which follows the 5 year duration of a WPDES permit. The
trade duration could be extended for practices that require renewable
rental fees (i.e., stream buffers or other changes in land use) or
maintenance costs (i.e., repairing sediment basins) and where water
7

“Water quality trading is intended to provide opportunities for efficiently achieving and maintaining water
quality standards within watersheds, as opposed to cleaning up one watershed at the expense of another.” EPA’s
2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 12-14.
EPA’s 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 10-11.
9
EPA’s 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, page 11.
8

3

quality improvements have been made that would justify extending
the practice/credit.
6. Monitoring Water Quality – An inherent risk of trading is that water
quality improvements will be overstated or never attained. There are
three levels of calculating nutrient reductions. Going from most
accurate and costly to least, these are: direct water quality
measurements, site specific calculations entered into acceptable
computer models, and pre-determined nutrient reductions for practices
regardless of site-specific characteristics.
Given the level of
monitoring that is already going on and the potential for expansion in
the Sweetwater watersheds of concern, we recommend a combination
of field monitoring and site specific calculations to determine credits
and measure success.
7. Enforcement and Permit Terms- Ensure that the WPDES Permit includes
clear terms holding Permitee liable for BMP-derived water quality
improvements; 10 Identify in permit document what is required for Permit
compliance –given in clear metrics, such as quantity of pollutant intended to
be removed through BMPs, number of linear feet of buffer, etc. 11
8. Baseline for Credits - Credits can only be generated for reductions
greater than regulation or TMDL baselines. 12
a. Greater than regulation – related to agriculture:
Credits for agricultural BMPs should only be given if those BMPs
are not already required by law; there is debate about what
specific pollutant is controlled by a given BMP, and the specific
facts of each situation would be considered in the trading process.
In Wisconsin, an agricultural BMP is not required by law if there
are no cost-share dollars available to the farmer. In the absence of
cost-share dollars, trading could be used to pay for
implementation of agricultural BMPs. The subcommittee agreed
10

EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 8. Among the items the EPA says should
be in a “credible” trading program, are “incorporating provisions for trading into NPDES permits” and
expressing trades in clearly defined “rates or mass per unit time as appropriate to be consistent with the
time periods that are used to determine compliance with NPDES permit limitations or other regulatory
requirements.” Id. at pars. 1 & 2. Additionally, “[m]echanisms for determining and ensuring compliance
are essential for all trades and trading programs.” EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at
page 10. “In the event of default by another source generating credits, an NPDES permittee using those
credits is responsible for complying with the effluent limitations that would apply if the trade had not
occurred. Id.
11
EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at pages 6-7.
12
EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5:
The term pollution reduction credits (“credits”), as used in this policy, means pollutant reductions
greater than those required by a regulatory requirement or established under a TMDL.

4

that this would be a favorable outcome. There was not agreement
as to whether farms wanting to participate need to undertake
certain practices in order to participate in trading, such as
completing a nutrient management plan.
b. Greater than TMDL baselines
For trading purposes, in a TMDL situation, it is understood that
the Waste Load Allocation (WLA) for the point source gets put
into the WPDES permit as the limit the point source needs to
meet. Then the point source would be allowed to: 1) trade with
other point sources that generated credits by making reductions
beyond the WLA or permit limit applicable to that source, or 2)
trade with non point sources that generate credits by undertaking
activities to reduce water pollution.
There was not agreement on where this baseline should be for
agriculture. The EPA’s policy is that the baseline should be set at
the Load Allocation (LA) and that an agricultural source cannot
generate tradable credits until the source gets to the LA. 13 By
contrast, the Municipal Environmental Group and MMSD propose
that credits should be generated when an agricultural source
makes reductions below the existing impaired water quality
conditions.

V.

Issues that Require Further Discussion and Refinement

13

EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5; see also EPA’s 2007 Water Quality
Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 132-133 of the PDF:
Nonpoint Source Baseline Derived from TMDL Load Allocations
An LA established under a TMDL defines the nonpoint source load reductions necessary to
achieve water quality standards. EPA would not support a trading program that allows nonpoint
sources to sell credits if the discharge is contributing to water quality impairment; therefore,
nonpoint sources should meet their portion of the LA before generating credits to sell on the
trading market.

See also, EPA’s January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5:
The term pollution reduction credits (“credits”), as used in this policy, means pollutant reductions
greater than those required by a regulatory requirement or established under a TMDL.
For example, where a TMDL has been approved or established by EPA, the applicable point
source waste load allocation or nonpoint source load allocation would establish the baselines for
generating credits.

5

The Trading Subcommittee left several issues for future discussions and
recommendations, not because they were too controversial, but simply because we ran
out of time. These are outlined below:
1. Credit ratios – how many pounds of pollutant reduction (credit) must be
purchased to offset 1 pound of pollutant reduction from on-site treatment? The
larger the trade ratio the faster the water quality improvements, however, the
ratio should not be set so high as to discourage trades that would improve water
quality. How should credit ratios be determined?
2. Credit Adjustment based on monitored results: Some subcommittee
members stated that ongoing water quality monitoring is a key element of an
effective restoration program and should be done throughout the restoration
period for the watershed so that pollutant reduction efforts, including credit
adjustment, could be refined as the process moves forward.
3. Monitoring: frequency of monitoring, where it is done, who does it, and who
pays for it.
3. Pollutant Dead Zones – With trading there is a potential for localized,
permanent impairments due to (a) geographic factors (i.e., distance between
trading partners or trading beyond the watershed) or (b) pollutant factors (trades
that inappropriately allow for “hypoxic” or “dead zones”)
Possible solutions:
 Identify where the WQ gains are to be realized (at the point source?
Further downstream?) and monitor the water quality between trading
partners
 Specify which pollutants may be traded under what circumstances
 Set a baseline for water quality that must be attained and don’t allow a
trade to allow more pollution than that into the water. 14

14

“NPDES permits must not incorporate trades that would cause impairment of a designated use (CWA
301(b)(1)(C); 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A)).” EPA’s 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers,
page 28.

6