Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring: Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.

Chris Clayton, River Alliance of Wisconsin Executive Summary

In 2007, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) described data and articulated data gaps for the water quality of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. By comparison to other regions of Wisconsin, these watersheds are rich with water quality data. SEWRPC characterized water quality trends and the achievement of water use objectives, standards, and criteria. Recommendations were made to further strengthen data collection and to broaden future analyses of water quality. One goal of the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc., (Sweet Water) is to show measured improvement in the water quality of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. This report takes a stab at identifying the role Sweet Water will play in water quality monitoring. What makes this goal most challenging is the fact that Sweet Water, by design, requires large amounts of data for purposes of planning, implementation, and adaptive management, yet since Sweet Water is a collaboration, its capacity to generate needed data sets depends on the willing cooperation of Sweet Waters many partners. The main thrust of water monitoring objectives that have been recommended for Sweet Water is to measure improvements in water quality over time, detect and measure pollution hotspots, provide a feedback mechanism for adaptive management of water resources, communicate the impacts of water to human health, and engage the communities of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Certainly these are challenging objectives, but ongoing monitoring provides a good foundation to work off of, and Sweet Water provides a venue for those who are actively monitoring to coordinate ways to achieve regional monitoring objectives. Currently, more data exist: 1) inside the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) service area than outside, 2) for the mainstems of rivers than for tributary streams, and 3) for physical and chemical parameters than for the biological. The majority of monitoring locations do not have long-term water quality data, and the existence of long-term biological data fish and macroinvertebrates at a given monitoring location is even rarer. On the other hand, a handful of monitoring locations in each watershed provide a relatively robust data set. Tables 3-7 of this report provide some specific information on water quality data collected in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds over the past ten years. In the short-term, Sweet Water has a need to collect data outside of the MMSD service area to develop Watershed Restoration Plans (WRPs) for the Milwaukee and Root River watersheds. Activities surrounding the proposed Total Maximum Daily Load study for the Milwaukee River and a newly formed Root River Restoration group may provide opportunities to fill data gaps in those areas. Also, Sweet Water has a need to collect data to implement the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic WRPs. Implementation projects should focus, in part, on filling the data gaps identified during the planning stages. The usual challenges to implementing a coordinated regional monitoring strategy present themselves, and this time is no different. New resources are few to nonexistent, staffing concerns pervade the conversation, and regional entities find it difficult enough to keep up with ongoing plans to monitor, let alone engage in discussions of a regional, cooperative monitoring scheme. The activities of Sweet Water, which revolve around implementing practices to restore water resources, require it to build some level of capacity to coordinate regional monitoring efforts, fill data gaps, measure Best Management Practice (BMP) effectiveness, house and use data, and report water resource improvements to the public. To some degree, all are necessary to successful project implementation. At the end (pages 11-13) of this report individual recommendations are made to address the issues just mentioned, along with several other stand-outs. These are draft recommendations for the Science Committee of Sweet Water to consider for further development, prioritization, and action.
1

Findings presented to Sweet Water Science Committee on July 13, 2010. Input and feedback were received by various committee members and incorporated into final report.

Page | 1

Overview One goal of the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc., is to make measurable progress toward improving water resources in the region. Many entities in the region currently address nonpoint and point sources of pollution, but through the creation of Sweet Water, the region publicly recognizes that more work is needed to meet water quality goals. Trust-building and collaboration are the means Sweet Water has to achieve its goals. One tool that is crucial to a measured improvement of water resources is a regional water monitoring system. Providing the necessary data and information will allow Sweet Water, and thus the region, to identify most appropriate actions and measure outcomes of dealing with nonpoint and point source pollution on a range of scales. This report is meant to assist in taking steps toward creating a water monitoring plan pursuant to Sweet Waters goals. More specifically, the report serves the following purposes: Recommend monitoring objectives for a regional water monitoring plan pursuant to Sweet Waters mission. Assist in identifying data gaps in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Identify challenges and opportunities for coordination among Sweet Water partners. Identify issues around monitoring requiring further attention by Sweet Water partners and committees. Background Large amounts of data have played a central role in the recent water quality planning for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Various monitoring programs within several agencies have provided the vast majority of data collected in the region. Three separate studies gather and analyze the many data sources, resulting in a set of recommendations to improve water resources. One study is the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU), which lays out stream and lake water quality conditions in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The other two studies recently completed are smaller-scale Watershed Restoration Plans for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic watersheds. These plans would not be possible without the extensive water monitoring being done. The RWQMPU recommends establishing long-term water quality and biological monitoring programs for areas outside of Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Districts service area. It also recommends that MMSD maintain long-term monitoring within the service area. The WRPs list water quality, biological, and habitat monitoring as a high priority action, fundamental to reaching Sweet Waters goals. Priority actions aimed at continuing and expanding efforts for the sake of coordinating monitoring within the region are listed in the WRPs as priority actions. Sweet Water invited partners to give input during the development of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River WRPs. From the beginning, it became clear that addressing the concerns of all Sweet Water partners in the plans presented a significant challenge. After getting feedback from the Science Committee, a decision was made to address the issue of habitat in the WRPs, along with the issues of public health and nutrients. Habitat is 2 incorporated into the WRPs through Appendix 4A . Public input is also directly responsible for the addition of 3 Appendix 7A , which identifies additional planning needs for riparian and terrestrial wildlife habitat. One point made clearly in every one of these planning documents is that data collection, analysis, and dissemination are crucial to Sweet Waters ability to reach its goals. The importance of data is made especially evident in the Watershed Restoration Plans for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers. The final chapter of the restoration plans explains that success is dependent on evaluating
2

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Memorandum Report No.194, Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009, January 2010. 3 Gary S. Casper and Marsha B. Burzynski, Planning for Riparian and Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat, Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, September 2009.

Page | 2

the actions to take and measuring the effectiveness of those actions. Only by having sufficient data will Sweet Water be able to gauge its success. The tricky part, in this case, is defining what sufficient data means. Monitoring Objectives Specific monitoring objectives are necessary to guide a coordinated water monitoring effort and define data uses. This is especially the case since Sweet Water does not have a monitoring apparatus at its disposal. All of the issues discussed in this report are relevant to the following monitoring objectives. SEWRPC recommends a water quality monitoring program using the following objectives : Determine the extent to which conditions improve over time. Measure spatial and temporal trends. Provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of water pollution control measures. Detect new and emerging water quality problems. The Watershed Restoration Plans for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee Rivers recommend that continued monitoring in the watersheds follow objectives: Improve quantity and quality of data to inform decision making. Ensure a sound, scientific basis for the development, refinement, and implementation of the WRPs. Measure the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Engage the community, including non-traditional community members, in evaluating improvements in water quality, aesthetics, and habitat. In an Op-ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , Great Lakes Water Institute Director Val Klump offered four ways to determine the full cost of water, two of which might also serve as regional monitoring objectives: Understand how natural hydrologic ecosystems operate. Understand how our use of fresh water threatens human and ecosystem health. Ongoing Monitoring Currently, various partners of Sweet Water are collecting data throughout the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Several agencies collect the majority of data. Several other entities collect data for a variety of purposes. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) maintains a water quality monitoring program to assist in flood control, pollution abatement, and facilities planning. The water quality parameters and frequency of monitoring at each location differ depending on specific monitoring objectives. MMSD samples for a range of biological, chemical, and physical water quality constituents at 70 stream locations and 41 active sites in Lake Michigan. MMSD also partners with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to implement the Corridor Study, which is 6 designed to improve the understanding of water resources in the MMSD planning area . During the initial phases, USGS collected data at 15 stream locations, and MMSD collected data at 6 sites in Lake Michigan. Assessing biological communities is an important component of the study. One of the objectives of the Corridor Study is to establish a long-term network of monitoring stations with the capacity to detect changes in water quality. Phase 3 is focusing on continued biological community sampling, toxicity sampling, sampling of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, investigations on the fate of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, continuous streamflow gauging 7 at various locations, and enhancements to the Corridor Study database . From 2006 to 2008, the UW-Milwaukee Great Lakes Water Institute (GLWI) monitored bacteria at 62 municipal stormwater discharge locations and tested for the presence of a human genetic marker, Bacteroides. Results indicated high level of human bacterial contamination at stormwater outfalls on the Menomonee River between Hawley Road and Burleigh Street. Currently, Milwaukee Riverkeeper and GLWI are doing the same type of sampling and analysis at all stormwater outfalls within this reach. Results are indicating that infiltration of human
4 5 5 4

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Memorandum Report No. 194, op. cit. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Op-ed., A cost at both ends of the pipe, J. Val Klump, September 19, 2009. 6 United States Geological Survey, Water-Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5084. 7 For more information, go to http://wi.water.usgs.gov/water-quality/9kp46/index.html

Page | 3

sewage through failing sewer lines is the primary source of human bacterial contamination. Further research is being proposed that would determine the contribution of sanitary sewage contamination to stormwater discharges. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been monitoring surface waters in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds for decades. Over the years, monitoring has included baseline and Clean Water Act 8 assessments for streams and lakes, long-term trends water chemistry , natural community reference sites, fish and macroinvertebrate populations, and in-stream habitat surveys. Data needs are determined by each of the DNRs many programs. The DNR funds baseline monitoring through the budget process, and monitoring projects targeting specific water quality issues for problem definition, selection of management practices, and practice evaluation are funded through an annual competitive process. Wisconsin Lutheran College, Washington County Land and Water Conservation Department, City of Racine Health Department, and citizen monitors have all recently contributed to the pool of water quality data in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. In 2003, Wisconsin Lutheran College conducted a study of the Root River that included biological surveys. Washington County is devoting resources to annual monitoring of water quality at several locations. The City of Racine Health Department has completed an assessment of water quality within the citys boundaries, in addition to other assessments of the Root River. Citizens monitor throughout the area as volunteers with the Water Action Volunteers (WAV) and Level 2 Stream Monitoring Programs. Both citizen monitoring programs are administered by the DNR and UW-Extension. WAV volunteers complete Order-level macroinvertebrate surveys along with sampling physical water quality parameters. The Level 2 volunteers monitor physical parameters on a monthly basis and enter all data into the DNRs database. Data Gaps in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds SWRPC Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) completed an update to the regional water quality management plan to reduce water pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, resulting in the creation of Planning Report No.50 (i.e. Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, or RWQMPU), as well as its companion report which assesses water quality, Technical Report No.39 (TR-39). Both documents assess historical and current water quality data and water quality modeling results from design year 2020 to make recommendations on management practices that would help abate water pollution in the region. The reports identified regional data gaps and conducted water quality trends analyses. SEWRPC assessed trends by comparing the data collected during the reports baseline period to historical data . Assessment of the achievement of water use objectives for each stream or river segment was determined by calculating the number of samples collected during the studys baseline period that met water quality standards 10 and criteria . The reports recommend additional data collection in the region to ensure future analyses of water quality that are more complete. The reports make specific recommendations on the monitoring design needed to provide sufficient data. SEWRPC identified the following data gaps: For the purpose of assessing water quality, recent data are lacking in much of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. In general, water quality data are sparser outside of MMSDs service area than within the service area. Monitoring sites with long-term data are much more numerous within MMSDs service area than outside the service area. Outside of MMSDs service area, it is the mainstems of rivers which have long-term data. Inside the service area, the mainstems of rivers and several tributary streams have long-term data. Most monitoring sites in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds have no long-term biological data (i.e. fish and macroinvertebrates), even where assessments have been completed.
The Wisconsin DNR maintains a statewide long-term trend monitoring network for rivers. Current monitoring locations in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds include: Milwaukee River at Estabrook Park (1998-Present) and Root River at Johnson Park (1998-Present). 9 The baseline period was defined as 1998-2001 for the Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River, and Oak Creek watersheds. For the Milwaukee and Root River watersheds, the baseline period is defined as 1998-2004. 10 Comparisons to water quality standards and criteria were made for five water quality parameters: dissolved oxygen, temperature, ammonia, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria.
8 9

Page | 4

For the purpose of assessing compliance with standards or criteria for five water quality parameters, data were lacking during the study baseline period for the vast majority of tributary streams in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. More data were available for tributary stream inside the MMSD service area.

Table 1 helps illustrate the lesser amounts of monitoring data on tributaries in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The fact that tributaries comprise the majority of monitoring stations used to analyze water quality trends in the Milwaukee River watershed is deceiving. Many of those 24 tributaries are relatively large higher order rivers such as the North Branch Milwaukee River and East Branch Milwaukee River. Table 1: Monitoring Stations Used in Analysis of Water Quality Trends Root River Total number of monitoring stations Number of stations located on tributaries Number of stations outside MMSD service area 11 2 5 Menomonee River 9 0 NA Kinnickinnic River 12 3 NA
11

Milwaukee River 37 24 17

Oak Creek 9 2 NA

Lake MI Drainage NA NA

NA

In particular, two patterns identified in SEWRPCs reports are shown clearly by Tables 1 and 2. Many tributaries especially low order streams do not have sufficient data to analyze long-term trends. In fact, many tributaries 12 had little to no water quality data collected during the study period . Table 2: Tributaries Having Water Quality and Biological Data Root River Total number of tributaries Number with some data to compare to standards Number with macroinvertebrate samples Number with fish samples . The Corridor Study The Corridor Study, being done by the USGS and MMSD, has identified various data gaps, many of which have been filled in later phases. Phase 1 concentrated on gathering all available water quality data collected within MMSDs service area, thus creating a central database that could inform future phases of the study and other
For a complete list of monitoring stations used for analysis of water quality trends in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, see SEWRPC Technical Report 39, Tables 29, 53, 86, 132, and 158. 12 The absence of data on tributaries is something Sweet Water could take the lead in addressing in geographic areas where Sweet Water will be focusing activities to implement the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Watershed Restoration Plans. To determine the tributaries in need of monitoring, cross-reference information in Tables 48, 81, 127, 153, and 183 of Technical Report 39 with Tables 3 - 7 of this report and with MMSDs current long-term monitoring stations. 13 For specific information, see SEWRPC Technical Report 39, Tables 48, 81, 127, 153, and 183.
11 13

Menomonee River 12 7 4 7

Kinnickinnic River 12 3 0 0

Milwaukee River 76 19 27 30

Oak Creek 2 1 0 0

Lake MI Drainage 1 1 0 0

17 2 5 7

Page | 5

water resource projects. From this central database, data gaps were identified, allowing Phase 2 of the study to be planned. Data gaps identified in Phase 1 of the Corridor Study included: Few monitoring stations had the large data sets necessary for seasonality and trends analysis. In Phase 1, five monitoring sites were chosen for trends analysis due to their large amount of data. No data existed for emerging contaminants. Limited data existed for pesticides and PCBs. Historically, chlorides sampling was not routinely done during winter months or during snowmelt. Biological monitoring (i.e. fish and macroinvertebrates) was relatively sparse and few samples were taken at each monitoring station. Phase 2 of the Corridor Study filled gaps by monitoring a number of water quality parameters at 15 stream locations. Water chemistry, sediment chemistry including heavy metals and PCBs, biological, and discharge data were collected. Also, an aggregate bioassessment (i.e. fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae) was completed to describe water quality conditions in the MMSD service area. Results of Phase 2 indicated that biological data collection offers a significant means of understanding the present conditions of water quality while at the same time giving a long-term view of stream conditions. During Phase 2, winter runoff of chloride to streams was found to be substantial. United States Geological Survey Gauging Stations To complete the modeling for the regional plan in the area outside of the MMSD service area, USGS installed six gauging stations in 2004, adding to three previously existing stations. Of those nine USGS gauging stations, six were taken out of service at the end of 2004 and three presently maintain service. The RWQMPU recommended that those gauging stations installed in 2004 continue to be funded, but those gains to the USGS monitoring program have not been realized. Over the past six years, gauging stations have not covered mainstem river reaches of the West Branch Milwaukee River, East Branch Milwaukee River, North Branch Milwaukee River, Upper Milwaukee River, and Root River at the mouth. Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plans The Watershed Restoration Plans (WRPs) for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers elaborate additional needs for closing data gaps. Because the main thrust of the WRPs is to recommend actions to restore water quality, filling data gaps is considered necessary for successful implementation of the WRPs. As such, data gaps listed in the WRPs should be one main focus of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Watershed Action Teams. Existing and potential recreational areas in the watershed Chloride data linking road salt usage to water quality impacts Metals and PAHs (i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) Wildlife data, aquatic and non-aquatic species Wildlife habitat restoration plan Location and causes of unknown 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 The Menomonee and Kinnickinnic WRPs also focus attention on monitoring to inventory restoration activities and monitoring to measure the effectiveness of restoration activities throughout the watersheds. When an assessment of restoration activities is completed sometime in the future, these information will be necessary for determining progress towards achieving Sweet Waters goal of improving water quality in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The WRPs recommend, at minimum, tracking data trends over time for bacterial indicators, fish and aquatic life conditions, and phosphorus. Data Gaps inside MMSDs Service Area MMSD does monthly monitoring at about 70 locations on rivers and 41 locations on Lake Michigan. Measurements include several physical, biological, and chemical water quality parameters, as well as heavy metals. MMSD is also leading the Corridor Study (see above), one purpose of which is to fill data gaps in the service area. Along with the water quality monitoring and biological assessments being done by the DNR, the

Page | 6

service area has plentiful amounts of water quality data. This situation made possible the Watershed Restoration Plans and the proposed Total Maximum Daily Load studies for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Data gaps may exist on tributaries not routinely monitored by MMSD . Additional data gaps have been identified by the Watershed Restoration Plans for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers (see above). Data Gaps outside MMSDs Service Area Less water quality data have been collected in areas of the Milwaukee River and Root River watersheds outside of MMSDs service area than inside the service area, where MMSD monitors frequently at many fixed locations. Outside of MMSDs service area, there is no one entity responsible for full geographic distribution of long-term monitoring stations in the Milwaukee and Root watersheds. This situation factors into sparser data collection outside the MMSD service area than inside. Giving attention to this situation is necessary to ensure comprehensive data collection over Sweet Waters entire focus area. Tables 3 7 and Maps 1 5, located at the end of this report, provide information on water quality data collected outside of MMSDs service area over the last 10 years. Provided are monitoring dates and the number of samples taken at each monitoring station in the South Milwaukee River, Cedar Creek, East and West Branch Milwaukee River, North Branch Milwaukee River, and Root River watersheds. The inventory focuses on stream 15 flow, macroinvertebrates, fish, and total phosphorus . Level 2 stream monitoring which collects data on dissolved oxygen, pH, transparency, and continuous temperature is also highlighted. The information is not exhaustive, but it helps answer questions about the amount and coverage of recent data collection. Also, this information helps illustrate the various challenges and opportunities involved in developing a monitoring plan for Sweet Water. Points of interest arising from the data set include: 1. Since the completion of the SEWRPC study, DNR and USGS have continued to do the bulk of all monitoring outside of the MMSD service area. Washington County Land Conservation Department and 16 the City of Racine have collected water quality data in the upper areas of the Milwaukee River watershed and the lower portion of the Root River, respectively. Also, citizens have contributed a fair amount of data since the inception of the Level 2 stream monitoring program in 2006. 2. As part of the RWQMPU, SEWRPC analyzed water quality trends by using data from several monitoring locations in each of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Of the monitoring locations analyzed for trends, those in the MMSD service area and in the Root River watershed continue to be monitored on a regular basis. However, very few of the monitoring locations in the Milwaukee River watershed north of MMSDs 17 service area boundary have experienced continued, regular monitoring . 3. The RWQMPU and the WRP recommend maintaining long-term macroinvertebrate and fish sampling stations. Specifically, the plans recommend biological assessments at long-term monitoring stations, at a minimum, every two years. Over the last ten years, this recommendation was not met at a single location. The majority of biological assessments were completed once per monitoring location; however, assessments were completed a second time at several locations. Five locations had three or more macroinvertebrate assessments, and eight locations experienced three or more fish assessments. Only at two locations in the Root River watershed and one site in the Milwaukee River watershed did both 18 types of biological assessments occur multiple times . 4. In the last ten years, twenty-six locations in the Milwaukee River watershed and seven locations in the 19 Root River watershed were sampled for total phosphorus and fish or macroinvertebrate populations.
Tributaries routinely monitored include Fish Creek, Honey Creek, Indian Creek, Lincoln Creek, Little Menomonee River, Southbranch Creek, and Underwood Creek. 15 In most, but not all cases, sampling of total phosphorus indicates simultaneous collection of additional physical and chemical water quality data. 16 City of Racine Health Department data are not included in this report. City of Racine studies and related data can be found at: http://www.cityofracine.org/City/Departments/Health/Dynamic.aspx?id=1141 17 For a list of monitoring locations, compare Tables 3 6 of this report with Table 86 of SEWRPC Technical Report 39. 18 Root River watershed locations: Root River at Hwy 31 and Root River at Johnson Park. Milwaukee River watershed locations: Crooked Lake Creek. 19 In most, but not all cases, sampling of total phosphorus indicates simultaneous collection of additional physical and chemical water quality data.
14 14

Page | 7

Data Needs for the Sweetwater Trust This report has highlighted the many data needs of the Sweetwater Trust in pursuit of its mission. But in the relative short-term, data are necessary to develop Watershed Restoration Plans for the Milwaukee River, Oak Creek, and Root River; and data are necessary to implement existing Watershed Restoration Plans in the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River. Development of Additional Watershed Restoration Plans Watershed Restoration Plans represent a more detailed level of planning than the Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update. As the umbrella organization working to implement the RWQMPU, Sweet Water is charged with facilitating the creation of restoration plans, as well as building capacity to implement the approaches and partnerships needed to improve water resources throughout the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Data is necessary to the endeavor of developing remaining watershed restoration plans. MMSD will be leading a project to complete a third party Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for the Milwaukee River watershed. MMSD has proposed to identify and fill data gaps on route to completing the TMDL. Depending on the approach taken to develop a Watershed Restoration Plan for the Milwaukee River, the TMDL project could assist in providing needed data. The Oak Creek watershed, which is relatively small, lies within MMSDs planning area. Streamflow data has been collected at a USGS flow gauge station in South Milwaukee, continuously, since 1963. Since 1985, MMSD has collected water quality data at that station. In addition, MMSD collects monthly water quality data at seven monitoring stations along Oak Creek. As long as this situation continues, sufficient data should be provided for the development of either a WRP or TMDL. Recently, a Root River Watershed Planning Group was formed to evaluate the interest behind and possibility for developing a Watershed Restoration Plan. SEWRPC has initially determined that the current data set for the Root is sufficient to develop a WRP, and the group will soon be discussing options for a scope of work. However, SEWRPC did identify gaps in water quality data on the middle section of 20 the Root River from County Line Road to Johnson Park . Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Watershed Restoration Plan Implementation Watershed Restoration Plans for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers were completed in early 2010. To implement the plans, two important barriers exist in relation to data. 1. The first barrier is a series of data gaps identified in the WRPs (discussed above). These data gaps were identified because of the importance in allowing the Watershed Action Teams to take on all Foundation Actions, which is the term used in the WRPs for core actions necessary for full, effective implementation. 2. The second barrier is the difficultly in measuring Best Management Practice (BMP) effectiveness. The Watershed Action Teams are in the process of identifying the prioritizing individual projects serving the stepwise progression of implementing the WRPs. Knowing the level of effectiveness each project might have in improving water resources is crucial to the Watershed Action Teams decision making during both the process of prioritizing projects and the process of adaptive management. Filling Data Gaps: Challenges to and Opportunities for Coordination among Sweet Water Partners Making measurable progress toward improving water resources in the region requires collaboration among Sweet Water partners. This report has identified monitoring objectives, as well as regional data needs around which collaboration can (or should) be focused. It goes without saying that coordinating the actions of numerous entities each with its own self-interest is challenging, but on some level, progress is possible. Some of the major challenges to and opportunities for coordinating Sweet Water partners in filling data gaps otherwise keeping the region from improving water quality include: Implementing a Regional Monitoring Strategy Challenges: As much as intra-agency collaboration can be difficult, inter-agency collaboration is even more difficult, and coordinated monitoring is not free. Monitoring objectives and sampling methods can
20

SEWRPC Staff Memorandum, Water Quality Sampling in the Root River Watershed: 1964 2009, April 28, 2010.

Page | 8

vary widely between entities, making data compatibility an issue. In many cases, programmatic needs become the driver of data collection, resulting in needless spatial / temporal redundancy and data gaps. Opportunities: The bright side to this situation, especially in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, is that quite a bit of data gets collected, providing opportunity for future assessments of many of the regions surface waters. Ongoing data collection can serve as a foundation to address the long-term monitoring 21 recommendations made in the RWQMPU , as well as the shorter-term recommendations made in the Watershed Restoration Plans. Also, in terms of funding and monitoring design, current data collecting does offer some amount of flexibility. With options being available, the Science Committee should begin a discussion to identify monitoring locations at which the monitoring design recommendations stated in the RWQMPU and WRPs would be considered for implementation. There is potential for the outcome of these discussions to help lay the foundation for a regional monitoring strategy. Monitoring outside of the MMSD Service Area Challenges: As Sweet Waters activities progress outside the MMSD service area, more specific data needs will most likely increase in number. MMSD has taken consistent and phased approaches to measuring water resource conditions in its service area, and monitoring outside the MMSD service area is taking place by using several approaches, most of which are a part of the DNRs statewide water monitoring strategy. Resources for monitoring are stretched, making it a challenge to meet the data requirements of multiple programs. One result is that data collection is sparse outside the MMSD service area. Opportunities: Sweet Water can help foster increased coordination of data collection in this area, benefitting Sweet Water partners, as long as it communicates data needs very clearly and identifies the various means of filling those needs. For example, as activity progresses toward the development of Watershed Restoration Plans (and, perhaps more immediately, Total Maximum Daily Loads studies), there will be opportunities to coordinate monitoring efforts to fill data needs related to WRP development and implementation. Database Access and Data Linkages Challenges: Sweet Water would like to increase its capacity to use data to facilitate implementation of Watershed Restoration Plans. To be an efficient data user, Sweet Water must have access to all available data, which it currently does not. For example, access to the Corridor Database will be necessary to implement the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic WRPs. Two more large challenges Sweet Water must face are: 1) the lack of a central repository of data for the region since the Corridor Database does not include data outside the MMSD service area, 2) the absence of some data from any of the accessible databases in the region. Opportunities: The long-term endeavor that is watershed restoration requires Sweet Water to have full access to water resource data. Sweet Water is defining short and long-term data needs and determining the extent to which those needs can be met using the resources made available from Sweet Water partners. The process Sweet Water is undertaking so long as it results in centralized access to data for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds should be advantageous to partners since Sweet Water activities have the potential to generate new data and bring some existing data into a database. One goal of the Corridor Study is to create a central database of water resource information. Perhaps its too much to ask that Sweet Water attempts to do the same for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, but Sweet Waters activities will greatly benefit from a high level of database access and increased data linkages. Reporting to the Public and Funders Challenges: Making measureable progress in improving water resources will require consistent, timely reporting out to the public and funders. The Watershed Restoration Plans state that progress should be measured by an accounting of on-the-ground improvement measures (i.e. BMPs), as well as the actual
21

The RWQMPU identifies data gaps that need to be addressed so that, in the future, water quality can be analyzed more completely at individual monitoring locations and more broadly throughout the region. One example of a long-term monitoring recommendation made in the RWQMPU is stated in #3, on page 8.

Page | 9

monitoring of water quality improvements. In this sense, gathering information throughout the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds will be as much a challenge as reporting the information. Also, for the sake of adaptive management, the WRPs recommend assessing and reporting water quality improvements following five years of project implementation. Opportunities: An effort is underway to develop a Sweet Water report card that will use some measure to gauge activities to improve water resources. This effort, along with the effort to build Sweet Waters capacity to use data, provides opportunities to address the issue of reporting on water quality 22 improvements over time . Any progress made on developing a regional water monitoring strategy and improving database access and data linkages will help build Sweet Waters capacity to report on its progress. Coordinating Regional Monitoring: Issues and Recommendations Other issues remain, several of which will have some impact on a regional effort to coordinate, plan, and report monitoring activities. Some issues may require the attention of Sweet Waters Policy Committee and/or Science Committee. A brief description of each issue is given along with a recommendation and a referral to one of the committees: A Regional Monitoring Strategy A regional monitoring strategy would help define the regions short and long-term data needs, means of addressing needs, and identify responsibilities and expectations. Monitoring objectives make a strategy possible. Recommendation: The Science Committee should come to consensus on the monitoring objectives applicable to Sweet Waters regional approach to watershed restoration. Recommendation: A group, or subcommittee, should develop a list of recommendations, or actions, to provide a foundation for a water monitoring strategy for Sweet Water. Filling Data Gaps Ongoing data collection can serve as a foundation to address the long-term monitoring recommendations made in the RWQMPU, as well as the shorter-term recommendations made in the Watershed Restoration Plans. In terms of funding and monitoring design, current data collecting does offer some amount of flexibility. Also, there are lesser amounts of data outside the MMSD service area than inside. Sweet Water can help foster increased coordination of data collection in this area and at the same time benefit Sweet Water partners. Recommendation: The Science Committee should address spatial and temporal data gaps by identifying specific monitoring locations at which the long-term monitoring design recommendations made in the RWQMPU and WRPs could be considered for implementation. There is potential for the outcome of these discussions to help lay the foundation for a regional monitoring strategy. Recommendation: Sweet Water should communicate specific data needs and various means of filling data needs to agency partners who monitor extensively in the region. Measuring BMP Effectiveness The difficulty of measuring BMP effectiveness is a barrier to implementing the Watershed Restoration Plans. Sweet Water is in the process of developing an implementation plan for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic WRPs. Later this year, the Watershed Action Teams will prioritize individual projects to fund and implement. Understanding the effects of various projects (i.e. BMPs) on reducing pollutants would help the WATs make decisions. Recommendation: The Science Committee should recommend a means by which the Watershed Action Teams can prioritize projects demonstrating measurable improvements to water resources. Evaluating Effectiveness of Existing Management Strategies

22

For the sake of adaptive management, the Watershed Restoration Plans recommend that Sweet Water assess water quality improvements, watershed-wide, every five years. Sweet Waters WRP implementation plan will help determine if this recommendation makes sense in terms of the timeline and geographic scope.

Page | 10

The RWQMPU and WRPs model different scenarios of water quality improvement resulting from the implementation of different management strategies. For example, the reports assume full implementation of NR 151 (i.e. performance standards for stormwater runoff management), the 2020 Facilities Plan, and the statewide phosphorus lawn fertilizer ban to calculate reductions to various pollutants such as phosphorus and sediments. Presently, only the statewide ban on phosphorus in lawn fertilizer has been fully implemented. Any water quality improvements caused by Sweet Water-led projects should be understood separately from improvements caused by existing management strategies. Recommendation: At the appropriate time, the Science Committee should request updates on the impact of existing management strategies to water quality. Reporting Water Resource Improvements One of the biggest weaknesses of any data collection effort is reporting the meaning of the data to the public. A story should emerge of actions taken or not taken, effects, and relevance to communities. One of Sweet Waters greatest challenges is to do this well. Sweet Water is looking into possibly developing a report card that would use some measure to gauge activities to improve water resources and report the outcomes to the public. Also, Sweet Water is working to build its capacity to use data. Recommendation: The Science Committee should address any reporting by Sweet Water to the public of water resource improvements to ensure scientific validity. Bacteria Monitoring Bacterial contamination of surface waters is one of the primary concerns of Sweet Water, and there is a lot of happening in the region to address bacteria. A Science Subcommittee is busy addressing the issue of using the appropriate indicator to detect human waste in surface waters. A group of people from the Menomonee Watershed Action Team will be doing recreational use surveys at different points along the river. Also, work is being done by Milwaukee Riverkeeper and the Great Lakes Water Institute to collect data on bacteria at stormwater outfalls on the Menomonee River between Hawley and Burleigh. It would be useful to expand the effort to detect bacterial contamination of stormwater outfalls to cover a larger urban area over the long-term. Recommendation: The Science Committee should address this issue further by assessing different options for linking the detection of human bacteria with inventories of highly used recreational surface waters. Municipality Illicit Discharge Monitoring Municipalities monitor stormwater outfalls annually to meet requirements of their stormwater discharge permit with the state. The screening analysis is done during dry weather and includes a narrative description and visual observations. Actual discharges are analyzed visually and sampled for pH, total chlorine, total copper, total phenol, and detergents, and NR 216 (i.e. state rules on stormwater discharge permits) leaves open the possibility to sample for more effective indicators, such as ammonia, potassium, and bacteria. Recommendation: Sweet Water NGOs should address this issue by: 1) reporting to the Policy Committee on the feasibility of pooling resources to monitor for illicit discharges, and 2) reporting to the Science Committee on the feasibility of storing the data collected by municipalities in a database. Recommendation: The Policy Committee is currently addressing the issue of Watershed Based Permitting and should bring into their discussion the issue of resource sharing to monitor illicit discharges. Recommendation: Any coordination on this issue should include MMSDs illicit discharge monitoring. Future Recommendation: Once the Sweet Water NGOs have reported on the feasibility of pooling resources to monitor for illicit discharges, the Science Committee should weigh in on most effective indicator to use during the field analysis for illicit discharges. Citizen Monitoring The SEWRPC reports, the WRPs, and several entities besides have endorsed volunteer monitoring as a means of collecting data, engaging stakeholders, and education and outreach. Citizens monitor widely across Wisconsin and contribute data to the DNRs datasets on rivers and lakes. Invariably, agency staff and scientists are supportive of citizen monitoring, but the first thing that is usually questioned is data quality. All things being equal, the quality of citizen-collected data is lesser than the quality of scientist-collected data. But regardless of this fact, everyone sees a role for citizens to play; so let us instead define that role(s). There are more data needs in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds than there are resources to fill them. If the roles for citizen monitors are better defined, there is potential for citizens to collect high quality, usable data.

Page | 11

In-stream habitat monitoring provides one example of a clearly defined role for citizen monitors. The WRPs identify in-stream habitat monitoring as a priority action. The DNR collects in-stream habitat data while completing some, but not all, fish surveys. People in several parts of the state have previously considered the 23 DNRs qualitative fish habitat rating protocols for use by citizen monitors. There are many other possibilities. Recommendation: Sweet Waters NGO partners should explore possibilities for citizen monitoring to fill data gaps, most immediately for filling data gaps related to implementing the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic WRPs. Potential citizen monitoring projects should be reported to the Science Committee. Recommendation: Uniform habitat assessment protocols should be identified for use by MMSD at select monitoring stations as well as for use by citizen monitors. Impaired Waters Impaired waters assessments offer one way to judge the status of surface waters. In effect, any stretch of a river or a lake listed as impaired for a particular pollutant is not meeting water quality standards. The DNRs WisCALM (i.e. Wisconsin Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology) document lays out impairment thresholds for river and streams, which describe minimum data requirements and exceedance frequency for various water quality parameters. Much ongoing data collection does not meet the assessment criteria. Presently, the DNR is undergoing a review of - to consider lowering the minimum data requirements to assess waterbodies suspected of being impairment because of phosphorus. Also, the DNR solicits third party data, but data cannot be considered for assessments if they are not shared in a timely manner. This situation can be significant in a region where there is extensive third party data collection. Recommendation: The Science Committee should consider the data requirements for assessing impaired waters and data sharing arrangements in any discussions of a regional monitoring strategy. Water Quality Standards Variances As mentioned previously, the SEWRPC reports (i.e. RWQMPU and TR No. 39) assessed data for compliance with water quality standards, yet variances to water quality standards exist in the lower reaches of the Milwaukee River Basin. The Regional Planning Commission recommended that some of the variances to water quality standards be repealed to better reflect recent trends in water quality conditions. Making changes to the variances would allow for more accurate assessments. Recommendation: The Policy Committee should evaluate a way for Sweet Water to act on SEWRPCs recommendation to repeal variances to water quality standards as they apply to certain reaches of the lower Milwaukee River Basin.

23

For protocols: See Appendix E of SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.

Page | 12

Table 3: South Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010 (Outside MMSD Service Area)

Flow G M o n au g e S t a itorin t g Da ion tes

S am ples

Tot a lP M o n h o sp h o r itorin u g Da s tes

L e ve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

M ac roin v er M on itorin tebrate g Da tes

S am ples

C on tinuo us T Date em p s

mple s

Fish Surv ey M on itorin g Da te

les

Stat ion ID

Mainstem
Milwaukee River at Cedar Sauk Rd Milwaukee River at CTH C (Pioneer Rd) Milwaukee River at CTH T in Town of Grafton Milwaukee River at Grafton South End of Lime Kiln Park Milwaukee River at Hawthorne Dr. East in Town of Saukville Milwaukee River at Interurban Trail Bridge, Grafton Milwaukee River at South End of Grafton Mill Complex Milwaukee River at Waubeka (River Rd) Milwaukee River at Waubeka (VFW Park) Milwaukee River at Waubeka 2000 - 2004 Milwaukee River Station #3, upstream of Waubeka Impoundment Milwaukee River, Station #1, upstream of CTH A to Waubeka Dam Milwaukee River, Station #2, Waubeka Impoundment 2008, 2009 2002(F) 2003(F) 1 1 2008 2003, 2009 1 2 2001 - 2003 16 10 2008 10028877 463098 10010348 10012501

# of

2006-2009 2005 1 2006-2009 2003(F) 1 2006-2009 2006, 2007 2006, 2007 2004 2000 2000 2000 1 1 1 43

19

2006, 2007

22 20 10 10

10013202 2006, 2007, 2009 10012505 2006 2006 2006, 2007 10012504 10014722 10014721 04086360 10009187 10009189 10009186

Tributaries
Milwaukee River Tributary at Cedar Creek Rd in Grafton, WI Mole Creek 10 between Cedar Sauk Rd and Pleasant Valley Rd Mole Creek 6 at Cedar Creek Rd Mole Creek 7 at Pleasant Valley Rd Mole Creek 8 between Cedar Sauk Rd and Pleasant Valley Rd Mole Creek 9 between Cedar Sauk Rd and Pleasant Valley Rd Mole Creek at Center Rd Mole Creek at Maple Rd Ulao Creek at Falls Rd east of I43 Ulao Creek at STH 60 east of I43 Ulao Creek at Pioneer Rd Ulao Creek upstream of CTH W Unnamed Creek (Mole Creek) Station #2 at Pleasant Valley Road Unnamed Creek (Mole Creek) Station #3, at Cedar Sauk Road Unnamed Creek (Mole Creek) Station #4, at Hillcrest Road Unnamed Creek (Mole Creek) Station #5, at STH 33 Unnamed Stream (Ulao Creek) Site 1 upstream of Falls Rd Unnamed Stream (Ulao Creek) Site 2 upstream from CTH Q Unnamed Tributary (Mole Creek) downstream from STH 33 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000(F) 1 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 2006, 2007 2008, 2009 2008, 2009 2008, 2009 2006 10 13 10 10 4 2006, 2007 2009 2009 2008, 2009 2006 6 463207 10008881 10008879 10008883 10008882 10008880 10014720 10008817 10028774 10028775 10012614 10015273 10008815 10008818 10008819 10008816 10031113 10031114 2008 1 10029077 04086408

2001(F)

2006 2000(F) 2000 2000 2000 2000 2004 2004 2008

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date Sample does not appear in map. # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

DNR

# of

U SG S St ation

Stati on N am e

amp

# of

# of

TP S

Vol S a

Mac ro

Fish

ID

Table 4: Cedar Creek Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Flow G Mon auge Sta itorin t g Da ion tes

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Mac roi Mon nvertebr itorin a g Da te tes

Con tinuo us T Date e mp s

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

mple

Fish Su Mon rvey itorin g Da te

mple s

amp le

me

Statio

tatio n

n ID

ID

Big Cedar Lake - North Site - near West Bend, WI Big Cedar Lake - South Site - near West Bend, WI Big Cedar Lake General Lake Station Cedar Creek 4 at Cedar Creek Rd Cedar Creek at Big Cedar Lake outlet Cedar Creek at Covered Bridge Rd Cedar Creek at CTH M Cedar Creek at CTH Y Cedar Creek at Division Road Cedar Creek at Little Cedar Lake outlet Cedar Creek at Pleasant Valley Road

2000 - Present 2000 - Present 2004*, 2005 2001 2001 2003(F) 1 2003 3 1 1 1 2009

106 176

673226 673206 10007122 10008835 10014829 10028907 10010179 10028908 673248 673265 463063, 463013, 463074, 10022544

432409088151600 432224088154900

2009 2008, 2009 8 2008, 2009 2009 2001 - 2003 8

5 14

2009 2008, 2009

NA 14 5 2008, 2009 2009

Cedar Creek at STH 60 Cedar Creek near Cedarburg, WI Cedar Creek Tributary at CTH P at Jackson, WI Cedar Creek Tributary at Jackson, WI Cedar Creek Tributary on Town Road near Jackson, WI Cedar Creek upstream of CTH T Cedar Creek upstream of Pleasant Valley Rd Cedar Creek upstream of Sherman Road Cedar Creek, Schweitzer Impoundment Cedar Creek downstream of Lilly Rd Cedar Creek, Station #1, up from Covered Bridge Road Cedar Creek, Station #2, Lily Road to Schweitzer Dam Cedar Creek, Station #3, Schweitzer Impoundment Cedar Creek, Station #4, Upstream of Schweitzer Impoundment Gilbert Lake General Lake Station Lehner Creek 2 at Scenic Rd Little Cedar Creek 1 downstream of Pioneer Rd Little Cedar Creek upstream of Shadow Lane Little Cedar Lake - Deep Hole Little Cedar Lake - North Site - Near West Bend, WI Little Cedar Lake - South Site - Near West Bend, WI Little Cedar Lake General Lake Station Mud Creek south of Cedar Sauk Rd North Branch Cedar Creek at CTH NN North Branch Cedar Creek Downstream of CTH NN Polk Springs Creek 1 at Mayfield Rd Un Cr (Lehner Creek) Station #1, at Lily Road

2002(F) 2000 - 2010

2007*

2001 - 2003 2002 - 2004 2001 2001 2008

17 59 6 6 6

04086500 673270 04086443 04086465 04086485 463141 673249 10014207 673242 10009172 10008823 10009185 10009188 10009184 10007134 10008846 10008847 10014145 673122 673129 673130 10007133 10012522 10022038 10014144 10008862 10008831 432255088134700 432249088134500

2008 2000(F), 2001(F) 2 2005, 2008* 2000 2000(F) 1 2000 2000 2000 2000 2005 2001 2001(F) 1 2001 2005

1 3 2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2004 2003 - Present 2003 - Present 2 73 151 2006-2009 19 2006 - 2008 1

2004, 2008 2007(F) 1 2007, 2008 2005 2001 2000

2 2 1 1 1 2007 - 2008 7

2000(F)

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Was hing ton Cou nty ID

# of Ma Sam cro ples

Fish Sa

n Na

TP S a

Vol S

DNR S

USG S

Statio

# of

# of

# of

Table 4: Cedar Creek Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Flow G Mon auge Sta itorin t g Da ion tes

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Mac roi Mon nvertebr itorin a g Da te tes

Con tinuo us T Date e mp s

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

mple

Fish Su Mon rvey itorin g Da te

mple s

amp le

me

Statio

tatio n

n ID

ID

Un Cr (Polk Springs Creek), Station #1, at CTH P Unnamed Creek (Friedens Creek) 1 at Cedar Creek Rd Unnamed Creek (N. Branch Cedar Creek) Station #1, at Pleasant Valley Rd Unnamed Tributary to Cedar Creek at CTH NN

2000(F), 2001(F) 2001(F)*

2 2

2000 2001 2000 2009

1 1 1 1

2001

10008829 10008871 10008824 10030345

2009

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Was hing ton Cou nty ID

# of Ma Sam cro ples

Fish Sa

n Na

TP S a

Vol S

DNR S

USG S

Statio

# of

# of

# of

Table 5: East and West Branch Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Flow G Stati auge on Date Monitor s ing

Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes

Fish Sam ples

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

Con tinuo us T Date emp s

ples

Fish Su Mon rvey itorin g Da te

DNR Stat ion ID

USG S St ation ID

Stati on N ame

TP S amp les

Vol S am

Mainstem
Milwaukee River - Adjacent To Oz/Wash Co Land Trustfellenz Property east of West Bend Milwaukee River ~850 M upstream Of CTH H east of Kewaskum Milwaukee River 1 at Sunset Road east of Campbellsport Milwaukee River 2 at former Young Am. Dam Milwaukee River 2, Downstream Of River Road Extended Milwaukee River 3 upstream of confluence of East Branch Milwaukee Milwaukee River 4 at Falls Rd, former Chair Factory Dam Milwaukee River above Dam at Kewaskum Milwaukee River adjacent to Sunset Rd east of Campbellsport Milwaukee River at CTH A Town of Farmington Milwaukee River at CTH G / River Rd in West Bend Milwaukee River at CTH M west of Newburg Milwaukee River at former Woolen Mill Impoundment in West Bend Milwaukee River at River Park Rd in Town of Saukville Milwaukee River at Streamside Rearing Facility Pump RNC east of Newburg Milwaukee River at Washington Co. Line Milwaukee River between Indiana Ave and Veterans Ave in West Bend Milwaukee River downstream of Indiana Avenue in West Bend Milwaukee River Station #1 downstream from CTH A, along River Rd on Wash / Ozk Co Line Milwaukee River Station #1, downstream from West Bend Milwaukee River upstream from Light House Rd north of West Bend 2000(F) 2003(F) 1 1 2002 2003 2002 2003 2003 2004 2002(F) 2008(F) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2004 58 10015947 673106 673224 673105, 10031059 10030679 2007 1 2006-2009 2009 2007(F) 1 2007 1 2007 7 1 2006 5 2006 10021354 10012484 18 2006-2008 10021355 10012518 NA 10016030 10015868 10009247 10010202 10009248 10010359 10010723 04086149

2003(F) 2002(F) 2003(F)

1 1 1

2008 2008

1 1 1 1 2

2006 - 2007

11

2004

2008(F)

2008 2009

2004

51 2006

2006

04086265

2007(F)

2007, 2008

2000(F)

2000 2000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2001 7

10008857 10008832 10008814 10008833 10030861 10008811 10002478 10005791 203133 10010270 10008843 10010285

2000(F)

2000 2001 2009 2000 2006 2006

Tributaries
Auburn Lake Creek Auburn Lake Creek at CTH SS Auburn Lake Creek upstream from CTH SS Auburn Lake General Lake Station Crooked Lake General Lake Station Crooked Lake Outlet near New Fane East Branch Milwaukee River 1 at YMCA in Town of Auburn East Branch Milwaukee River 1 Town of Osceola East Branch Milwaukee River 1 upstream of Milwaukee River Confluence S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only. 2000(F) 1

04086190

2003(F)

2003 2001 2003, 2008

1 1 2

Was hing ton Cou nty

# of Ma Sam cro ples

# of

# of

# of

Table 5: East and West Branch Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Flow G Stati auge on Date Monitor s ing

Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes

Fish Sam ples

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

Con tinuo us T Date emp s

ples

Fish Su Mon rvey itorin g Da te

DNR Stat ion ID

USG S St ation ID

Stati on N ame

TP S amp les

Vol S am

East Branch Milwaukee River 2 north of CTH SS Town of Auburn East Branch Milwaukee River 2 Town of Auburn East Branch Milwaukee River 3 Town of Osceola East Branch Milwaukee River at CTH S East Branch Milwaukee River at Mill Rd below New Fane Millpond East Branch Milwaukee River at New Fane, WI East Branch Milwaukee River downstream Ashford Auborn Dr at New Fane Millpond East Branch Milwaukee River downstream of Mauthe Lake East Branch Milwaukee River inlet of New Fane Millpond East Branch Milwaukee River near Dundee East Branch Milwaukee River Town of Osceola East Branch Milwaukee River upstream footbridge at South Main Trail Town of Osceola East Branch Milwaukee River, Station #1, New Fane Dam East Branch Milwaukee River, Station #2, New Fane Impoundment East Branch Milwaukee River, Station #3, upstream Of New Fane Impoundment East Branch Milwaukee upstream East Moraine Dr northeast of Kewaskum Engmon Creek 1 in West Bend Forest Lake - Deep Hole Forest Lake General Lake Station Long Lake - Deep Hole Long Lake General Lake Station Milwaukee River Tributary at Waucousta Mud Lake - Deep Hole Parnell Creek near Dundee Quas Creek #1 at Progress Dr Quas Creek #2 upstream Of CTH P Quass Creek 1 at Main St / CTH P Quass Creek 2 at Mileview Rd Riveredge Nature Center Creek at Hawthorne Dr Riveredge Nature Center Creek at South Boundary Silver Creek 1 downstream of Silver Brook Dr Silver Lake - Deep Hole Silver Lake General Lake Station Silver Lake near West Bend Stoffel Creek 1 upstream of STH 28 2002(F) 1 2007(S) 2001(F), 2007(S) 1 2

2004 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 2004 2008 2004 2000 - 2004 2002(F) 1 2008 2008 2001(F) 1 2006, 2007, 2008 2005 2000, 2002 2000, 2002 2002(F) 1 2000, 2002 2008 2001 2004 2004*, 2006*

4 1 2 1 2004 - 2008 63 2008 6

10012157 10014251, 10013545, 10010620 10012158 203093 10012034 04086200 203094

1 1 2001, 2007 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2004 - 2005 1 2000 - 2009 7 2001 2007 2001 6 1 9 58 18 9

10031058 10031056 203134 10014255 10013549 10009179 10009182, 10011496 10009183 10015782 10008844 203076 10002449 203077 10002450 203135 203087 203099 10009252 10009253 10008864 10008863 2006-2009 2006-2009 18 18 2007, 2008 2006-2008 10012524 10012525 10008886 673203 10014865, 10007149 432322088125000 10009249

04086177

2000(F)*, 2001(F)

433632088100200

04086096 433926088132500 04086175

2002(F) 2002(F)

1 1

2002 2002 2001 2001

1 1 1 1

2001(F)

2001

1 2004, 2009 Present 15

2000, 2005, 2007 2001(F), 2002(F) 2 2002

3 2009 - Present 1 12

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Was hing ton Cou nty

# of Ma Sam cro ples

# of

# of

# of

Table 5: East and West Branch Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Flow G Stati auge on Date Monitor s ing

Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes

Fish Sam ples

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

Con tinuo us T Date emp s

ples

Fish Su Mon rvey itorin g Da te

DNR Stat ion ID

USG S St ation ID

Stati on N ame

TP S amp les

Vol S am

Unnamed Creek (Crooked Lake Creek) 1 at Tower Dr Unnamed Creek (Crooked Lake Creek), Station #1, up from Mauthe Lake Beach Access Road Unnamed Creek (Kewaskum Creek), Station #1, up from CTH H Unnamed Creek (Milwaukee River Tributary at Waucousta) upstream of STH 45 Unnamed Creek (Wallace Creek), Station #1, up from Boltonville Rd Unnamed Creek 1 upstream of CTH F Town of Mitchell Unnamed Creek upstream of (Wayne/Kewaskum) Townline Rd Unnamed Tributary to Milwaukee River at CTH F Town of Eden Unnamed Tributary To Milwaukee River At Middle Rd Town of Eden Unnammed Tributary to Milwaukee River downstream of STH 45 Wallace Creek 1 at CTH H Wallace Lake General Lake Station Watercress Creek 1 at Watercress Rd West Branch Milwaukee River 1 at River Rd West Branch Milwaukee River at Drumlin Dr near Lomira West Branch Milwaukee River, Station # 2, downstream of CTH V West Branch Milwaukee River, Station #1, up from STH 45 West Branch Milwaukee River, Station #3, upstream of Rustic Dr West Branch of Milwaukee River at CTH V West Branch of Milwaukee River at STH 45

2001(F) 2000(F), 2001(F), 2008(F) 2000(F) 2001(F), 2002(F)

1 3 1 2

2001 2000, 2008 2000 2002 2000

1 2 1 1 1 2009 1 2008 1

10008870 10008830 10008841 10009250 10008840 10010623

2001(F) 2008(F) 2007(F) 2007(F)

1 1 1 1 2008 2007 2007 2009 2001 2001 2001, 2008 2003 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2008 2007 2007 1 1 1

10029078 10021383 10021421 10030746 10008872 10007138 10008873 10010465 203112 10008842 10008838 10008834 10020925 673107 0486125

2008(F) 2003(F) 2001(F) 2000(F)

1 1 1 1

2008

2001 2000 2000 1 1 1

2000(F) 2000(F)

1 1

2000

2007, 2008 2007

6 4

2007, 2008 2009

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Was hing ton Cou nty

# of Ma Sam cro ples

# of

# of

# of

Table 6: North Branch Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Flow G Mon auge Sta itorin t g Da ion tes n Co unty les

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes

Fish Surv ey Mon itorin g Da tes

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

Con tinuo us T Date emp s

Mac ro S amp

amp le

ples

TP S amp les

Statio n ID

Statio n Na me

Vol S am

ation

ID

Fish S

USG

DNR

# of

# of

Adell Tributary at CTH NN Batavia Creek at CTH SS Batavia Creek at STH 28 Chambers Creek #1 at CTH W Chambers Creek 2 at STH 28 Ellen Lake Deep Hole Erler Lake General Lake Station Gooseville Creek 1 west of Lynn Rd Gooseville Creek 2 east of Lynn Rd Green Lake Deep Hole Green Lake General Lake Station Lake Ellen General Lake Station Melius Creek (Discharge to) at Peter Farm in Town of Scott Melius Creek (Discharge to) at Winton Farm Town of Scott Melius Creek 2 at CTH SS Melius Creek at Kettle Morraine Fish Hatchery (DNR) Melius Creek at STH 28 Mink Creek 1 upstream of STH 144 Mink Creek 2 at CTH SS Mink Creek 3 at Mink Creek Rd Mink Creek at CTH S Mink Creek downstream of Boltonville Rd Mink Creek, Station #1, upstream from CTH A Mink Creek, Station #2, downstream of CTH D Nichols Creek 1 at CTH F and CTH NN Nichols Creek 2 at STH 28 in Cascade Nichols Creek 3 at CTH V Nichols Creek 4 at Cedar Lane Rd Nichols Creek downstream of CTH N North Branch Milwaukee River (Nichols Creek) in Cascade North Branch Milwaukee River 1 upstream of Silver Creek Rd North Branch Milwaukee River 2 at CTH A North Branch Milwaukee River 3 at CTH SS North Branch Milwaukee River at CTH M North Branch Milwaukee River at Riverside Rd North Branch Milwaukee River at Silver Creek Rd North Branch Milwaukee River at STH 144 North Branch Milwaukee River at Washington Co. Line 2001 2000(F) 1 2000, 2009 2001, 2008 2003 2001 2001 2008 2005 1 2 2 1 1 1

2007

# of

4 2008 2009 5 5 2008, 2009 2009

2009 2002

1 1

2000 - 2009 1 1 2000 - 2008 2000 - 2008 2001 1 2004 2001 2001 2001 2001 2008(F) 2000(F) 2000(F) 1 1 1 2008 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001, 2008, 2009 2008, 2009* 2008 2003(F) 1 2003 2001 2001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2006 - 2007 2008

47

10021196 603475, 10008874 603121 10008779 10008836 603311 10007135 10008845 10008877 673208 10007137 10005788 10012356 10012355 10008848 603056 603301, 10008849 10008852 10008850 10008851 10029058 10029085 10008825 10008826 10008859 10008861 10008858 10008856 10030491 10031057 10010365 10008854 10008853 10012523 10029688 10021197 603351 NA

81 94

1 2008, 2009 12 2008, 2009

2008, 2009 1

10

2008, 2009

2009

12

2006, 2007 2008, 2009

8 8

2006, 2007 2008

2007 2002(F) 1 2009

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Was

# of

hing to

S St

Table 6: North Branch Milwaukee River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010

Flow G Mon auge Sta itorin t g Da ion tes n Co unty Was hing to les

Leve l2V olu Stre am M nteer onito Date ring s

Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes

Fish Surv ey Mon itorin g Da tes

Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes

Con tinuo us T Date emp s

Mac ro S amp

amp le

ples

TP S amp les

Statio n ID

Statio n Na me

Fish S

Vol S am

# of

# of

North Branch Milwaukee River between Riverside Rd and confluence of Milwaukee River North Branch Milwaukee River downstream CTH W North Branch Milwaukee River downstream of Silver Creek Cascade Rd North Branch Milwaukee River near Fillmore 2000 - 2004 North Branch Milwaukee River near Random Lake North Branch Milwaukee River upstream of Abbott Dr North Branch Milwaukee River upstream of CTH A North Branch Milwaukee River upstream of CTH XX Random Lake (central) Random Lake Deep Hole Random Lake General Lake Station Silver Creek 1 at STH 144 Silver Creek 2 upstream of Creek Rd Silver Creek at Allen Rd Stoney Creek 2 upstream of Boltonville Millpond Stoney Creek 3 at Moraine Dr Stoney Creek at Boltonville Stoney Creek at CTH X near Boltonville Stony Creek upstream from Stony Creek Rd Unnamed Creek (Wallace Creek), Station #1, upstream from Boltonville Rd Unnamed Creek at Bates Rd northwest of Adell Unnamed Creek at Cth W northwest of Adell Unnamed Tributary (Wallace Creek) at Shalom Dr Wallace Creek 1 at CTH H Wallace Creek near Fillmore Wallace Lake Deep Hole

2008

1 2007 2

# of

10031060 10015891 10031062 2004 2001-2002, 2007 2008 2007 52 15 1 1 1 603477 10029086 603416 10029089 10014871, 10014872 603312 10005787 10008885 10009317 10030341 10008869 10008868 2004 2002 1 6 673267 10008813 10008840 2007 2007 1 2 1 5 4 603493 603492 10029087 10008872 673271 673207 040863315 040863313 04086340 040863075

2008

2008 2008(F) 1 2008*

1 2

2008(F)

2008 2001 2004, 2006* 2001 2002 2009 2001 2001

1 2

2008

2000 - 2009 2001(F) 2002(F) 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

50

2009

2002(F) 2000(F) 2000(F)

1 1 1

2000

2008(F) 2001(F)*

1 2

2008

2008 2001 2001, 2004

04086335

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

USG

DNR

# of

S St

ation

ID

Table 7: Root River Monitoring Stations 2000-2010 (Outside MMSD Service Area)
Flow G Statio auge n Date Monitor s ing Leve l2V olun Stre teer am Date Monitor s ing Mac roin ver Mon itorin tebrate g Da tes s Tota lP Mon hosphor itorin u g Da s tes Con tinuo us T Date emp s Fish Surv ey Mon itorin g Da tes Wisc on Luth sin eran Colle ID ge amp le ples TP S amp les ID USG S St ation

Statio n Na me

# of Ma Sam cro ples

Fish S

Vol S am

# of

Mainstem
Colonial Park in Racine Root River #2 upstream of 5 Mile Rd Root River 1 upstream of Spring St in Racine Root River at 4 Mile Rd Root River at Environmental Education Community Center in Racine Root River at Five Mile Rd 2003(S) 2003(F) 2002(F), 2003(F) 1 1 2 2003 2003 2003 2007 1 1 1 1 2007 - 2009 2007 2002(S)*, 2003(S), 2004(F)* 2000(F)*, 2007(S) 2003(S) 2000(F), 2001(F), 2003(S) 2003(S) 2000 - Present 2004 2005 2007 1 1 2008 - 2009 2004(F) 2001(F) 2001(F) 2001(F) 2006(F) 1 1 1 1 1 2006 1 2004 2001(F) 1 2006 2002 1 1 2001 2001 2 8 6 523107 040872347 10017156 10009322 10016596 10015839 10015603 2010 1 10021358 10030352 10015704 2001 2001 1 1 10 1 22 2008 2003, 2008 2009 12 10028994 10010428 10010426 523115 10020682 523178 523061, 523101, 10015703 10016284 10012202 WLC Site 2 10008263, 10008113 04087233 04087242 10013158 10029584 10028993 523055 10008246 10008244 10008248 10017142 040872393 WLC Site 4 WLC Site 1 WLC Site 5

Root River At Johnson Park Root River at Johnson Park downstream of foot bridge Root River at Memorial Dr bridge in Racine Root River at Nicholson Rd Root River at STH 31 Root River at STH 38 Root River Canal near Franklin Root River near mouth at Racine Root River Remap downstream of STH 38 Root River upstream of 7 Mile Rd bridge Washington Park in Racine Young Radiator Co. near STH 32 and 4 Mile Rd

2000 - Present

7 4 1 3 1

2003, 2006

2000 - Present

# of

DNR

# of

Statio n ID

157

04087240

WLC Site 3

2003 2000, 2001, 2003 2003

1 3 1

2005 - 2006 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004

13 1 1 1 52 56

Tributaries
East Branch Of Root River Canal at 50th St East Branch Of Root River Canal at 58th St East Branch Of Root River Canal at CTH KR East Branch Root River Canal downstream of STH 11 Hoods Creek at Brook Rd near Franksville Husher Creek at 7 1/2 Mile Rd near Caledonia Husher Creek near Caledonia Husher Creek upstream of STH 38 Root River Canal at 5 Mile Rd Root River Canal at Six Mile Rd / CTH G Root River Canal downstream of 7 Mile Rd Unnamed Creek to Root River Canal downstream of Waukesha Rd Unnamed Tributary to Root River at 6 1/2 Mile Rd east of I94 Unnamed Tributary to the Root River Canal upstream of Waukesha Rd West Branch Root River Canal upstream of CTH C

2001(F) 2002(F) 2008(F) 2006(F) 2007(F)

1 1 1 1 1

2006 2007 2009 2006

1 1 1 1

S = Spring; F = Fall * Multiple samples taken during specified date # Except where noted, 2010 information runs through March 2010 only.

Map 1: South Milwaukee River Watershed Monitoring: 2000 - 2009

(Outside of MMSD Service Area) Level 2 Volunteer Monitoring Station
< & < &

USGS Gauging Station Fish Survey Location

Macroinvertebrate Survey Location Total Phosphorus Sampling Location

ilw au ke e

Highway

County Road

River or Stream Lake or River Watershed Boundary County Boundary City

Port Washington
River

# * # *

U la o C

reek

Mol e

LAKE
# *

Cr
0

MICHIGAN

Mequon

1:110,000

2 Miles

Map 2: Cedar Creek Watershed Monitoring: 2000 - 2009

Big Cedar Lake West Bend

ee k Cr

Ce d

< &

No r

"

th B

"

"

Ced a r

C re

" k e C re
< &

ek

P olk S prin g Cr

Level 2 Volunteer Monitoring Station USGS Gauging Station Macroinvertebrate Survey Location Fish Survey Location Total Phosphorus Sampling Location Highway County Road River or Stream Lake or River Watershed Boundary County Boundary City

r Litt le C ed ar C

Mequon

1:130,000

Milwaukee Rive r
4 Miles

"

ar

Ce dar

Map 3: East and West Branch Milwaukee River Watershed Monitoring: 2000 - 2009
Fond du Lac
Long Lake Plymouth

We st

Br a nc hM

au il w ke
ke e
E Br M il wa u

i lw au

Ri ve

kee R

e
R iv er
r
< &

Milwauke e
Qu as Cr

< &

Level 2 Volunteer Monitoring Station

< &

West Bend
Silver C r

USGS Gauging Station Fish Survey Location Highway

< &

R iv

er

Macroinvertebrate Survey Location Total Phosphorus Sampling Location County Road River or Stream Lake or River Watershed Boundary County Boundary City

1:210,000

6 Miles

Map 4: North Branch Milwaukee River Watershed Monitoring: 2000 - 2009

au k

ee

River

s liu

Cr

Creek

ilw

M i nk

er il v S

ee Cr

Nort h

Br a

St ony

Creek

Level 2 Volunteer Monitoring Station

< &

ce l la a W

ee Cr

nch

< &

USGS Gauging Station Fish Survey Location Highway

Macroinvertebrate Survey Location Total Phosphorus Sampling Location County Road

River or Stream Lake or River Watershed Boundary County Boundary City

West Bend

1:130,000

Miles

Map 5: Root River Watershed Monitoring Stations: 2000 - 2009

(Outside of MMSD Service Area)
< &

Level 2 Volunteer Monitoring Station USGS Gauging Station Fish Survery Location

Milwaukee

Macroinvertebrate Survey Location Highway

Total Phosphorus Sampling Location County Road

River or Stream Lake or River Watershed Boundary County Boundary City

< &

River Canal

< & < &

Racine "

Root

East

1:175,000

4 Miles

Kenosha

L A K E

Branch

M I C H I G A N

R oot

Riv er
iv er C a Ro ot R na l
er Hus h Cr

R oot River