Chapter 4: Characterize The Watershed

Watershed Restoration Plan
Menomonee River
CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERIZE THE WATERSHED

4.0
4.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the Menomonee River watershed. It includes descriptive information pertaining to the historical trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and ecological integrity, bank stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources. This chapter represents a refinement of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) and includes fishery, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data gathered since the completion of that plan up to the year 2009. In some cases, the habitat discussion focuses on the watershed as a whole and does not discuss each element of habitat for each assessment point area. The second half of the chapter presents water quality and pollutant loading within the Menomonee River watershed. In contrast to the habitat-based discussion, the water quality and pollutant loading data and modeling results are presented for each assessment point area. As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), the RWQMPU was the starting point and set the framework for this plan it is not intended to be the final level of restoration for the watershed. The goals of the RWQMPU, and consequently the WRP, were not set to meet water quality standards in all locations of the watershed 365 days per year. Therefore, the water quality results shown in this chapter, which are based on the recommended plan from the RWQMPU, do not all meet water quality standards. However, achieving the goals
will significantly reduce the annual pollutant loads and concentrations in the streams and improve habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive watershed
management approach is implemented that will continue to improve water quality. 4.2 Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Menomonee River Watershed Note: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 consist of excerpts from SEWRPCs Memorandum Report 194 Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 2009. In some cases, SEWRPCs material has been modified or rearranged to highlight pertinent aspects of the Menomonee River watershed and to fit within the context of this WRP. Memorandum Report 194 is included in Appendix 4A. Background Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into stream systems by one of two pathways: either directly flowing overland as surface water runoff into streams or infiltrating into the soil surface and eventually flowing underground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally flow only during the wet season or large rainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called perennial streams and are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry periods. The surface water drainage system contains approximately 142 miles of perennial and ephemeral streams within the Menomonee River watershed (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts the assessment point areas, identified as MN-1 thru MN-19. As noted above, some of the habitat-based characteristics and the water quality and pollutant loading discussions utilize assessment point areas to focus the discussion. Between the discussion of habitat and water quality/pollutant loading, note that there are minor differences in aerial coverage of several of the assessment 4-1
Menomonee River
point areas. Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Menomonee Rivers habitat-based discussion. Figure 4-7, presented later in this chapter, corresponds to the water quality/ pollutant loading discussion. Viewed from above, the network of water channels that form a river system typically displays a branchlike pattern. A stream channel that flows into a larger channel is called a tributary of that channel. The entire area drained by a single river system is termed a drainage basin, or watershed. Stream size increases downstream as more and more tributary segments enter the main channel. As water travels from headwater streams toward the mouth of larger rivers, streams gradually increase their width and depth and the amount of water they discharge also increases.
4-2
Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No. 194.
FIGURE 4-1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Menomonee River
To better understand the Menomonee River watershed and the factors that shape its stream conditions, it is important to understand the effects of both spatial and temporal scales. Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance while river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins are least susceptible. However, large disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. Similarly, on a temporal scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short term. However, if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.1 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream channelization and the construction of concrete-linings, have resulted in longer term impacts throughout the Menomonee River watershed. Historical conditions Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary area including the Menomonee River has been substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.2 This conversion allowed for the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area that currently exists, but this conversion has lead to significant environmental degradation in water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.3 Further comparison of the earliest known survey of the entire Menomonee River system, completed in 1836, to the present channel conditions in 2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization, channel lining and diversion of stream channels over this time period. Straightening meandering stream channels or channelization was once a widely used and accepted technique in agricultural management. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) cost-shared such activities up to the early 1970s within southeastern Wisconsin. The objectives of channelization were to reduce flooding, facilitate drainage of low-lying areas, and allow more efficient farming within rectangular fields. Channelization can lead to increased water temperature due to the loss of riparian vegetation. It can also alter in-stream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating features, generally lead to a diminished suitability of in-stream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Flood minimization measures also involved the placement of concrete (both as a flow channel enhancement and as flow controls as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed channel) and removal of vegetation from channels to promote rate of flow. Historically, these measures were implemented without consideration of habitat impacts. Concrete-lined stream segments are particularly damaging, due to the creation of conditions that fragment and limit linear and lateral connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and ecosystem; limit or prevent fish and wildlife movement; increase water temperature; destroy fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat; limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing and aesthetics; and may
1
G.J. Niemi and others, An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems From Disturbance, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 14, pages 571-587, 1990 2 Poff, R. and C. Threinen, Surface Water Resources of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison, Wisconsin, 1964 3 Milwaukee River Estuary Area of Concern (AOC), http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/milwaukee.html#pagetop
4-4
Menomonee River
actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo provides additional information on the watercourse and contains detailed mapping of the Menomonee River watershed. Land use, imperviousness, and hydrology The urban land use within the Menomonee River watershed is expected to increase between the present and 2035. While such urbanization in the absence of planning can create negative impacts on streams, urbanization itself is not the main factor driving the degradation of some reaches of the Menomonee River watershed. In general, streams can survive and flourish in urban settings. However, the main factors leading to the degradation of urban waterbodies are the following: Creation of large areas of connected impervious surfaces Lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of runoff Proximity of development to waterbodies Loss of natural areas Inadequate construction erosion controls. These factors increase the potential for the occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity effects associated with urbanization. Industrial and commercial land uses have significantly more impervious area than residential land uses. Furthermore, smaller residential lots create more impervious surfaces than larger residential lots. TABLE 4-1 lists the approximate amount of impervious surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial, and governmental and institutional development.
4-5

TABLE 4-1
Menomonee River
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Type of Urban Development Two-Acre Residential One-Acre Residential One-Half-Acre Residential One-Third-Acre Residential One-Fourth-Acre Residential One-Eighth-Acre Residential Industrial Commercial Impervious Surface* (percent) 10-15 15-25 20-30 25-35 35-45 60-70 70-80 85-95
*Higher percentages of impervious surface increases the potential for negative water quality/quantity effects
Although commercial and industrial developments are characterized by a larger percentage of impervious surfaces, residential developments (including lawns) present different concerns. Lawns are considered pervious, but they do show some similarities to impervious surfaces. When lawns are compared to woodlands and cropland, they are found to contain less soil pore space (up to 15% less than cropland and 24% less than woodland) available for the infiltration of water. In many instances, the porosity of residential lawns is impacted by considerable soil compaction that normally occurs during grading activities. Native grasses, forbs, and sedges have deeper root systems than turf grass. The deep roots loosen the soil and create flow channels that increase infiltration capacity. Also, owing to excessive applications of fertilizers and pesticides, urban lawns typically produce higher unit loads of nutrients and pesticide than those produced by cropland.4 When a new commercial or residential development is built near a stream, the extent of driveways, rooftops, sidewalks, and lawns increases while native plants and undisturbed soils decrease, and the ability of the shoreland area to perform its natural functions (flood control, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic beauty) is decreased. In the absence of mitigating measures, urbanization impacts the watershed, not only by altering the ratio between stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, but also through the changing of stream hydrology. In general, increased imperviousness leads to greater runoff volumes and peak flows; this is referred to as flashiness (or the rate at which flow responds to a precipitation event) (Figure 4-2). These changes further influence other characteristics of the stream, such as channel morphology, water quality/quantity, and biological diversity.
Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, Watershed Protection Research Monograph No.1, March 2003, p. 7
4-6
Note: The discharge curve is higher and steeper for urban streams The words before and after refer to before and after urbanization
Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.
FIGURE 4-2 HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON URBAN AND RURAL STREAMS

Menomonee River
In addition, because impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow is available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall, baseflow levels are often reduced in urban streams.5 This has been observed to occur in the Menomonee River watershed, which limits recreational opportunities such as canoeing. In addition to water quantity and stream hydrology, stormwater runoff traveling over a parking lot or driveway will pick up more heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants than runoff traveling over surfaces that allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to infiltrate. This directly affects water quality and pollutant loading within the Menomonee River watershed, discussed on page 26. Biological Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and hydrological variables. Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species abundance and distributions within aquatic systems; however, such interactions are beyond the scope of this report and are not considered further in this document. Abiotic factors such as stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, and substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities (fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat quality. For example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high quality habitat. It is important to note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within a watershed as well as to land use directly adjacent to the stream bank. Consequently, watershed size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffer width are critical elements necessary in defining habitat quality. 4.3 Habitat Assessment within the Menomonee River Watershed This section highlights habitat information for key assessment point areas within the Menomonee River watershed based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data obtained from years 2000 through 2009. This assessment was based upon fish, macroinvertebrate, and habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by multiple agencies. These samples were collected for a variety of purposes and programs. However, it is important to note that the collection methods used were similar and comparable for purposes of this report. Physical and riparian The Menomonee River system is comprised of about 6% concrete-lining and 2% enclosed channel. The concrete lining is predominantly located within the Honey Creek (MN-16) and Underwood Creek (MN-14) assessment point areas. With several exceptions, the majority of the Menomonee River stream system is in open channel and largely stable. Lilly Creek is very unstable and comprised of more than 70% eroded streambanks, whereas the streams within other Menomonee River watershed assessment point areas are generally less than 20% eroded. The Menomonee River and its tributaries generally enjoy a high amount of protection from riparian buffers that exceed 75 feet in width on more than half of its stream miles. The following assessment point areas are exceptions:
5
Simmons, D., and R. Reynolds, Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long Island, NY, Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982.
4-8
Watershed Restoration Plan Lilly Creek (MN-7) Little Menomonee Creek (MN-10) Dousman Ditch (MN-13A) Underwood Creek (MN-14) Honey Creek (MN-16) Lower Menomonee River mainstem (MN-18, 19)
Menomonee River
In these areas, only a third of the riparian buffers exceed 75 feet in width. These riparian areas are typically associated with park systems and are often associated with high quality vegetation communities (See Map 9 in Appendix 4A). There are 74 significant vegetation communities distributed throughout the Menomonee River watershed and are components of primary environmental corridors (PEC), natural areas, and critical species habitat areas as summarized in the RWQMPU. These vegetation communities range in quality from poor to excellent. In general, the highest quality communities are associated with the largest stands or areas. While the majority of sites within the Menomonee River watershed are in the good to excellent range, it is important to note that all of these vegetation communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo provides additional information on buffer widths and plant communities including detailed mapping of these features within the Menomonee River watershed. For more information on natural areas within the Menomonee River watershed, see the following reports: A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin6 A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District7 A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County8 Conservation Plan Technical Report9 Stream widths in the Menomonee River were observed to range from about 20-30 feet in width in the headwaters to about 70-100 feet in width in the downstream reaches. The Menomonee River mainstem (assessment point areas MN-2, MN-5, MN-9, MN-12, MN-15, MN-17, and MN-18 / MN-19) is generally dominated by gravel and sand substrates. The Little Menomonee River (MN-11) ranges from about 20-30 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates. Honey Creek (MN-16) and Underwood Creek (MN-13 and MN-14) both range from about 10 to 40 feet in width and are dominated by gravel substrates. Butler Ditch (MN-8) ranges from about
6
SEWRPC, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, Planning Report No. 42 (September 1997) 7 SEWRPC, A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Memorandum Report No. 152 (December 2002) 8 SEWRPC, A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County, Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132 (November 1991) 9 MMSD, Conservation Plan Technical Report (October 2001)
4-9
Menomonee River
10-25 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates in the headwaters and gravel substrates in the lower reaches. As summarized within RWQMPU, there are a total of 153 point sources identified within the Menomonee River watershed that include noncontact cooling water permits, individual permits, combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls, and separate sewer overflow (SSO) outfalls. As shown in TABLE 4-2, these are mostly located within the lower areas of the Menomonee River watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls found within the Menomonee River watershed. Stormwater outfalls are relatively evenly distributed throughout the watershed. The physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to streambed and/or banks, especially if they are constructed at poor angles. These outfalls can be retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among others. It is also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration practices as well as protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. In addition to outfall design and construction, the location of the outfall is an important consideration. An outfall that discharges directly to a waterbody conveys stormwater past the riparian buffer. These conditions preclude any opportunity for the riparian buffer to filter or treat stormwater. Ideally, outfalls would discharge directly into the riparian buffer area, which would allow some infiltration and filtration of the stormwater within the buffer area. Outfall pipes can be retrofit or daylighted to shift the outfall discharge point to the riparian buffer; note that the riparian buffer may need to be modified in the new discharge area to prevent erosion. See Figure 4-3 for examples of infiltration and streambank protection projects along Underwood Creek. Also, see Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo provides additional information on outfall pipes, point sources and monitoring sites including detailed mapping of these features of the Menomonee River watershed.
4-10
TABLE 4-2, Page 1 of 2 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

[]
TABLE 4-2, Page 2 of 2 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

[]
Outfall located within riparian buffer Rock-lined area downstream of outfall to increase infltration and reduce erosion
Vegetated area to increase infiltration
Re-connected floodplain/ Expanded riparian buffer
Erosion control fabric
Outfall located within riparian buffer Natural stone streambank
Underwood Creek Stream Restoration Project

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No.194.
FIGURE 4-3 INFILTRATION AND STREAMBANK PROTECTION

Watershed Restoration Plan Instream biological conditions
Menomonee River
The most recent biological assessment of the Menomonee River watershed identified a strong relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.10 For example, median chloride concentrations among greater Milwaukee watersheds show a positive relation with increasing land use. However, it is important to note that not all water quality constituents showed the same pattern in its relationship with urban lands, some showed opposite responses and some showed no patterns at all. However, aggregated biological indices generally present a pretty clear relationship between urban environments and habitat. Figure 4-4 shows the strong negative relationship between fisheries Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Integrity (HBI) quality with increased levels of urbanization within the greater Milwaukee watersheds.11 Hydrology plays an important role. As noted above, urbanization increases impervious surfaces, which can lead to an increase in flashiness, which subsequently affects streambank stability, streambed stability, pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics. These changes can affect habitat availability and quality. The Menomonee River contains about 20% imperviousness based upon the amount of urban land development. In summary, the hydrology within the Menomonee River watershed is a major determinant of stream dynamics and is a vital component of habitat for fishes and other organisms. The interactions among land use, stream characteristics, and habitat within the Menomonee River watershed are diagramed in Figure 4-5. TABLE 4-3 presents aggregated bioassessment results from multiple watersheds from the Milwaukee area. Data from other watersheds were used to in order to put the results of the Menomonee River into context. This table really highlights the fact that the highest quality aquatic habitats tend to be located in less developed areas. In contrast, the poorest quality biological communities are located in highly urbanized areas, including Underwood Creek (prior to restoration) and Honey Creek, both within the Menomonee River watershed. While urbanization is not the only determinant of habitat quality, it does tend to play a prominent role and serve as a predictor of habitat degradation. In general, SEWRPCs RWQMPU summarized that the biological community in the Menomonee River watershed is limited primarily due to the following: 1) Periodic stormwater pollutant loads (associated with increased flashiness) 2) Decreased base flows and increased water temperatures due to urbanization 3) Habitat loss and continued fragmentation due to culverts, concrete lined channels, enclosed conduits, drop structures, and past channelization
10
J.C. Thomas , M.A. Lutz, and others, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5084 (2007) 11 Note that the USEPA indicates that IBI is used in warm freshwater streams to evaluate fish species richness and composition, number and abundance of indicator species, trophic organization and function, reproductive behavior, fish abundance, and condition of individual fish.
4-14
FIGURE 4-4
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIOTA AND URBANIZATION

.
Source: SEWRPC, Memorandum Report No. 194.
FIGURE 4-5 INTERACTIONS OF LAND USE, STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND HABITAT

AGGREGATED BIOASSESSMENT RESULTS

.]
Menomonee River
Urban land uses tend to increase impervious surfaces, which affect stream hydrology and impact water quality. Periodic stormwater pollutant loads result in significant pollutant loading to area waterbodies. Most of the water quality impacts are associated with the first flush of rainfall or snowmelt events (wet weather event). The first flush carries most of the pollutants that have accumulated on impervious surfaces since the preceding wet weather event. Following the first flush, subsequent runoff is referred to as extended runoff; this runoff tends to transport less pollution. In general, the first flush occurs during the first 30 minutes of a wet weather event and the rest of the wet weather event produces extended runoff. Recent analyses compared the concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) among the following sources: First flush stormwater CSO SSO Extended runoff The analysis included water quality data that was gathered from 1990 to 2003, so it included both pre-tunnel and post-tunnel data. The analysis of TP within first flush stormwater indicates that TP concentrations are comparable to those found in CSOs, but tend to present in lower concentrations relative to SSOs. The concentration of TP within extended runoff is generally lower than those within the CSO and the first flush. The analysis of TSS within first flush stormwater indicates that TSS concentrations are generally higher than TSS concentrations found in CSOs, SSOs, and extended runoff. These analyses indicate that nonpoint source pollution from the first flush of wet weather events contribute to TP and TSS loads and impact water quality. Chlorides from deicing activities also affect water quality. Similarly to TP and TSS, chlorides are transported to area waterbodies during the first flush of wet weather events. Chloride concentrations in the Menomonee River (at 70th Street) are correlated with winter and wet weather events. As expected, the measured chloride concentrations tend to be highest during the winter months when salt is applied to roadways within the Menomonee River watershed. With respect to item 3 on page 4-15 (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and concrete linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) that was recently restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). This project is located in Underwood Creek and it serves as a good example of the potential habitat improvement that can be realized by concrete removal and floodplain restoration.
4-18
Straight channel
Concrete lining
Re-connected floodplain Erosion control fabric
Natural, meandering channel
Stabilized bank Gravel Substrate Large boulders provide resting areas and slope stability
Underwood Creek Stream Restoration Project

Source: SEWRPC, modified from Memorandum Report No.194.
FIGURE 4-6 CONCRETE REMOVAL / FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION

Watershed Restoration Plan Channel obstructions and fragmentation
Menomonee River
There are more than 300 potential channel obstructions within the Menomonee River watershed. These structures are primarily associated with road and railway crossings in the form of culverts and bridges, but obstructions can also include concrete lined channels, drop structures, and debris jams, among others. These obstructions can form physical and/or hydrological barriers to fisheries movements, which can severely limit the abundance and diversity of fishes within stream systems.12 It is unknown how many road or railway crossings are limiting fish passage in the Menomonee River. However, the section of concrete lining near Miller Park (river mile 3.62 to 4.24) and the Menomonee Falls Dam (river mile 21.9) are two of the most significant fish passage obstructions on the Menomonee River. The Menomonee Falls Dam is a complete barrier to upstream fish passage. This particular area also contains bedrock outcrops resulting in natural falls, which is likely where Menomonee Falls got its name. Historically, these bedrock outcrops have probably greatly limited fish passage upstream, so the upper reach of the Menomonee River has likely always been rather isolated from downstream areas, even before the construction of the dam. Downstream along the mainstem between USH 41and I-94, approximately 1,000 feet of concrete lining limits fish passage due to a combination of water velocity and the lack of fish resting places. As summarized by SEWRPCs RWQMPU, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish species throughout the Menomonee River watershed over the last 100 years. However, it is important to note that this loss of species has been disproportionately greater among reaches that are farther away from a connection with Lake Michigan (TABLE 4-4). Historical fish assemblages within the lowest reach of the Menomonee River (4.24 miles) contained the fewest number of species compared to the upstream areas that were comprised of more than two times as many fish species. However, this lower section of the Menomonee River was only recently re-connected with the Milwaukee River Estuary and Lake Michigan when the Falk Dam was completely removed in 2001. In addition, removal of the North Avenue Dam and major habitat improvements near the dam site that were completed in 1996 on the Milwaukee River have also contributed to a significant increase in abundance and diversity of fishes in the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and estuary areas. These efforts, combined with several instream restoration enhancements as well as stocking programs, have also contributed to the highest number of species found (a total of 42 total species) within the Menomonee River in over 100 years of fishery surveys. Comparison of current fish assemblages among reaches within the Menomonee River shows that the middle reach (River Mile 4.24-29.1) and upper reach (upstream River Mile 29.1) contained 35 and 24 total fish species, respectively. Although this is not the only potential factor affecting fish species diversity, it does show that the greater the separation from Lake Michigan, the less diverse are the fish assemblages. Existing water quality monitoring information The Menomonee River watershed has a total of 34 surface water monitoring stations. The majority of the water quality data are being collected by the MMSD, USGS, WDNR, and volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeepers Citizen Based Monitoring program. The MMSD continues to sample bi-monthly physical and chemical sampling and analysis at 11
12
T.M. Slawski, and others, Effects of low-head dams, urbanization, and tributary spatial position on fish assemblage structure within a Midwest stream, North American Journal of Fisheries Management (2008)
4-20
Menomonee River
mainstem and 14 tributary sites on the Menomonee River including inorganic, organic, bacteriological, and instantaneous water quality measurements. The MMSD also contributes funds for the operation of flow gaging stations by the USGS on the Menomonee River and some of their associated tributaries.
4-21
TABLE 4-4 FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION

.]
Menomonee River
The MMSD with USGS have also established six real-time water quality monitoring station throughout the Menomonee River watershed. Using remote sensor technology, the MMSD and USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and estimating other real-time concentrations of selected water quality constituents. Real-time sensors at each location are measuring specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity along with stream flow and stage. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms that transmit data in parallel to the MMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on a real-time basis allows for water resources management decisions and provides information for citizens to see. 4.4 Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Menomonee River Watershed For each assessment point, an assessment point area has been developed as a part of the modeling process. These assessment point areas are the land areas that the water quality model uses to calculate the delivered pollutant loads. Each assessment point areas water quality is the result of the upstream water quality and a function of the delivered loads from the assessment point area, accounting for the effects of instream processes through the water quality model. For each assessment point area, the following is presented: A map of the assessment point area showing the area and land use in the area Land use in the assessment point area Civil divisions (municipalities) that are in the assessment point area Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Baseline defined as: o The simulated water quality resulting from the model that has been validated considering actual water quality data through calendar year 2007 o Land use as of 2000 o Land use pollutant loading rates that were initially based on the source loading and management model (SLAMM) and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) models with some adjustments made to calibrate the water quality model. To support the development of this watershed restoration plans (WRP), the water quality models were updated to run through December 2007. The purpose of the update was to account for known changes in the watersheds and to ensure the models still adequately represent Baseline conditions. The updated modeling results for the Menomonee River watershed were found to accurately simulate observed flow and water quality conditions. The Water Quality Model Refinement memo is included in Appendix 4B. Detailed Fact Sheets are located in Appendix 4C. The fact sheets use data, maps, figures, and tables to present a comprehensive picture of the Baseline conditions within each assessment point area in the Menomonee River watershed. The pollutant loading is presented by Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources (industrial discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows SSOs)). The loading for nonpoint sources is further refined to show the delivered loads by land use (both in loads and in percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed in units per acre per year). 4-23
Menomonee River
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Year 2020 defined as the water quality resulting from the model assuming the following:
o
Growth in the assessment point areas as projected in the SEWRPC RWQMPU for Year 2020. Complete implementation of the RWQMPUs recommended actions for the Recommended Plan, which includes full implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management and implementation of many other actions as detailed in the RWQMPU. See Chapter 6 for a list and brief description of RWQMPU recommendations that are included in this WRP. For more detail and information, see Chapter X of the RWQMPU. Water quality modeling results based upon these assumptions. The pollutant loading is presented by nonpoint sources and point sources (industrial discharges, CSOs and SSOs). The loading for nonpoint sources is further refined to show the delivered loads by land use (both in loads and in percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed in units per acre per year).
o o
While the chapter presents data for each of the assessment point areas individually, it may be useful to first provide a comparison between all assessment point areas within the Menomonee River Watershed. TABLE 4-5 offers a summation of loads derived from modeled nonpoint and point sources. The nonpoint and point loads represent the Baseline modeled water quality in units per year. In addition, the ranked loads for the Menomonee River watershed assessment point areas and graphs that present the unit loads per acre for the assessment point areas are presented in Appendix 4D. The data and analysis included in these appendices can serve as tools during the implementation of actions to address focus areas in the Menomonee River watershed.
4-24
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-5 TOTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT POINT AREA LOADS

1
TP MN-1 MN-2 MN-3 MN-4 MN-5 MN-6 MN-7 MN-8 MN-9 MN-10 MN-11 MN-12 MN-13 MN-14 MN-15 MN-16 MN-17 MN-18
Baseline Nonpoint 2 3 TSS BOD tons 72.51 159.12 166.1 155.84 299.95 503.46 359.86 348.6 794.41 132.24 1,206.69 162.1 458.19 1,080.77 906.89 938.64 153.47 945.39 pounds 18,311 40,380 31,849 30,953 56,361 45,516 46,638 45,937 96,487 16,862 159,035 17,753 66,400 137,569 108,283 120,123 20,254 110,523
FC
TP pounds 0 988 0 0 1 161 0 6 169 0 356 90 2 42 28 205 1,795 16,170
Baseline Point TSS BOD tons 0 1.6 0 0 0.04 0.14 0 0.16 0.17 0 1.28 0.09 0.05 0.42 0.69 0.64 53.32 79.05 pounds 0 6,760 0 0 20 450 0 78 164 0 3,100 570 27 380 1,262 1,082 20,758 148,801
FC billion counts 0 0 0 0 1,551 0 0 6,070 3,101 0 517 0 2,068 14,266 6,586 9,010 1,486,392 838,648
TP pounds 268 1,710 600 681 1,350 1,387 1,295 1,553 2,818 430 4,491 516 2,261 4,399 3,317 4,126 2,463 19,465
Baseline Total TSS BOD tons 72.51 160.72 166.1 155.84 299.99 503.6 359.86 348.76 794.58 132.24 1,207.97 162.19 458.24 1,081.19 907.58 939.28 206.79 1,024.44 pounds 18,311 47,140 31,849 30,953 56,381 45,966 46,638 46,015 96,651 16,862 162,135 18,323 66,427 137,949 109,545 121,205 41,012 259,324
FC billion counts 17,124 80,777 77,793 94,701 245,151 411,666 200,552 230,282 778,400 150,343 2,203,608 159,102 1,104,294 2,367,803 1,742,047 2,351,754 1,908,149 2,749,614
pounds 268 722 600 681 1,348 1,226 1,295 1,547 2,649 430 4,135 425 2,259 4,357 3,289 3,921 668 3,295
billion counts 17,124 80,777 77,793 94,701 243,600 411,666 200,552 224,212 775,299 150,343 2,203,091 159,102 1,102,226 2,353,537 1,735,461 2,342,744 421,757 1,910,966
Notes: 1 TP = Total phosphorus 2 TSS = Total suspended solids 3 BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand 4 FC = Fecal coliform
4-25
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5 Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds)
Menomonee River
The Menomonee River contains 18 assessment points and corresponding assessment point areas. The assessment point areas are presented on Figure 4-7. 4.5.1 North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1) The North Branch Menomonee River is located in the far northern extent of the Menomonee River watershed and predominantly within the village of Germantown. The river begins about mile west of County Y, between Bonniwell and West Rockfield Roads. It flows northeasterly across county trunk highway (CTH) Y, state trunk highway (STH) 145 and then crosses Maple Road approximately mile north of Rockfield Elementary School. From this point, the river changes direction and flows southeasterly through Faber-Pribyl Woods to cross the Wisconsin Central Limited (WCL) / Canadian National (CN) rail line and CTH G about 1/8 mile north of Rockfield Road. From CTH G, the river continues to flow southeasterly and approximately follows the WSL/CN rail line. The end of North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area is located upstream of the confluence with the Menomonee River, approximately mile north of Firemans Park in the village of Germantown (Figure 4-8). A tributary flows through Hoelz Swamp. Overall, the North Branch Menomonee River flows for about 1.5 miles and the area encompasses 2.7 square miles. The land use within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (68%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 22% of the total land use within the area. This includes the Faber-Pribyl Woods natural area, which is located in the center of the assessment point area and the Hoelz Swamp, located on the downstream end of the assessment point area. This downstream point and the Hoelz Swamp are located within a large environmental corridor that is located north of Freistadt Road and east of CTH G. The riparian corridor widths vary from greater than 75 feet to less than 25 feet. In a few cases, the narrower riparian widths can be attributed to farming right up to the edge of the river. The North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. The minimal development in the assessment point area is primarily distributed north of Rockfield Road. Low-density residential (defined in following table) along with transportation, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 10% of the land use. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 2% of the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area is impervious. More information pertaining to land use and the effects of imperviousness on water quality and flows are available in the RWQMPU. TABLE 4-6 presents the land uses within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area.
4-26

TABLE 4-6 LAND USE IN THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2
Menomonee River
Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 2.7
Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 67.76% 5.69% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 21.63% 4.49% 0.37% 100.00%
High Density Residential Commercial
Institutional & Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands, and Open Space Transportation Manufacturing and Industrial Total
Notes: 1 Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling units / net residential acre). 2 High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-27
45 t u
MN-1
43
C ii tt y o ff C y o MEQUON MEQUON
MN-1 MN-3
41 t u 45 t u
MN-2 MN-10
!
MN-3
!!
MN-2
MN-4 MN-4
! !
MN-6 MN-5
MN-10
MN-5 MN-11
43
MN-6 MN-9
!
45 t u 41 t u
MN-7
!
C ii tt y o ff C y o
MN-7
GLENDALE GLENDALE
45 t u
MN-8
!!
MN-12
MN-11
43
MN-9
! !
MN-12
MN-8
MN-15
C ii tt y o ff C y o B R O O K F II E L D BROOKF ELD
45 t u 41 t u
C ii tt y o ff C y o M II L W A U K E E M LWAUKEE
C ii tt y o ff C y o WAUWATOSA WAUWATOSA
43
MN-13 MN-13
MN-14
MN-15 MN-17
!
94 18 t u
MN-14 MN-16
18 t u
! ! !MN-17
94
41 t u
18 t u
WAUKESHA WAUKESHA
18 t u
94 894
MN-18
! MN-18
C ii tt y o ff C y o W E S T A L L II S WEST ALL S
41 t u
C ii tt y o ff C y o N E W B E R L II N NEW BERL N
MN-16
45 t u
C ii tt y o ff C y o G R E E N F II E L D GREENF ELD
894
94
43
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Assessment Point Basins Watersheds Waterbodies Civil Divisions
0 2,375 4,750 Feet
Figure 4-7 MN Watershed

9,500 WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
December, 2009
Pioneer Road
MN-1
! !
Mequon Road
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Waterbodies Watersheds Assessment Point Basins Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture Low Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial
Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utilities Manufacturing and Industrial
650 1,300 Feet
Figure 4-8 MN-1 Land Use

December 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Washington County are located within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area. The municipalities are the town of Germantown and the village of Germantown. Nearly 88% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 12%. The extent of the civil divisions within the assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-7.
TABLE 4-7 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Civil Division Town of Germantown Village of Germantown Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.3 2.4 2.7 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 12.33% 87.67% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO), TP, fecal coliform (FC) and TSS in this assessment point area; however, the parameters of focus in the North Branch Menomonee River are FC and DO. Within this assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (52%) and residential (24%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. The data suggest that FC exceedances are a function of nonpoint source loading, as higher FC concentrations tend to be coincident with higher flows. See Figure 4-9, Figure 4-10, and Figure 4-11. Note: the black line on Figure 4-9 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate for the annual measure and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO tend to decline during the summer months. However, they decline more than would be expected. This could be due to inputs of organic material and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) from the assessment point areas abundant wetlands. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed. Total phosphorus concentrations were assessed as good and TSS was assessed as very good. The relationship between TP and TSS suggests that TP is probably associated with suspended
4-30
Menomonee River
sediment; the concentrations of both parameters appear to be linked to nonpoint source loads. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-8. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, for some areas, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables; BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO within the assessment point area. TABLE 4-9 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-10 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-11 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-31
Menomonee River @ North Branch Menomonee River (RI 6)

Average Number of Days Per Year
400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
Average Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
FIGURE 4-9
MN-1 DAILY FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS

WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 4-10
MN-1 MONTHLY FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS

North Branch Menomonee River Reach 006

Fecal Coliform
Flow Conditions 1.E+05
High Flows Moist Conditions Mid-range Flows Dry Conditions Low Flows
Regulatory Standard (400 cfu/100 mL)
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
C onc e ntra tion (c fu/1 0 0 m L)
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Flow Duration Interval (%)
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-11
MN-1 FLOW BASED FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS


TABLE 4-8
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Assessment Point MN-1 North Branch Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 701 81 116 287 672 89 90 147 9.6 9.5 90 0.047 0.038 95 1.24 1.12 8.2 6.9 0.0023 0.0013
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) 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)
Dissolved Oxygen
Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l)
Total Phosphorus
Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l)
Total Nitrogen
Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l)
Total Suspended Solids
Copper
4-35

TABLE 4-9
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Point Source
Government / Institution
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs -----
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units pounds tons pounds 44.24 12.38 1,987 65.26 25.52 5,251 56.95 22.15 5,435 10.86 3.39 1,555 2.19 0.37 181 ---11.61 0.79 403 9.27 0.64 264 1.75 0.07 33 3.28 1.45 209 335 3.20 0.81 428 156 2.34 0.44 182 249 1.22 0.19 86 149 10.02 2.28 337 4,066 ----0.94 0.23 36 362 44.85 1.80 1,923 168 ---------
FC billion counts 8,970 555 826 157 19 -336 622 154 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-10 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Point Source
Transportation
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Residential
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD 17% 17% 11% 24% 35% 29% 21% 31% 30% 4% 5% 8% 1% 1% 1% ---4% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 3% 2% 24% ----0% 0% 0% 2% 17% 2% 11% 1% -------------
FC 52% 3% 5% 1% 0% -2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 1% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-36
SSOs
SSOs
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-11 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Ultra Low Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Industrial Industrial Point Source
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre 0.018 0.005 0.828 0.027 0.011 2.188 0.024 0.009 2.265 0.005 0.001 0.648 0.001 0.000 0.076 ---0.005 0.000 0.168 0.004 0.000 0.110 0.001 0.000 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.087 0.001 0.000 0.178 0.001 0.000 0.076 0.001 0.000 0.036 0.004 0.001 0.140
----
0.000 0.000 0.015
0.019 0.001 0.801
----
-----
FC billion counts/acre 3.738 0.231 0.344 0.065 0.008 -0.140 0.259 0.064 0.140 0.065 0.104 0.062 1.695 -0.151 0.070 -Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-37
SSOs -----
Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues
Menomonee River
The flashiness within North Branch Menomonee River (MN-1) was also evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. This assessment point area contains one plant community site, which was rated as fairly good. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate for the annual measure and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 1% reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC load in this assessment point area. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data in this assessment point area are presented in TABLE 4-12. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the following paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, for some assessment point areas, the table evaluates compliance with variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-13 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for MN-1. TABLE 4-14 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load. TABLE 4-15 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 1% reduction in FC loads, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any appreciable change in the assessment of FC. The assessment of FC (annual) would remain as moderate and FC (swimming season) would remain as good. The characterization of the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain unchanged as moderate and very good, respectively. Total suspended solids would remain as very good and the assessment of TP would improve from good to very good. Note that the preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards, including special water quality variance standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the North Branch
4-38
Menomonee River
Menomonee River assessment point area would remain unchanged as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-12 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Assessment Point MN-1 North Branch Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Year 2020 Condition 726 80 68 309 700 87 44 152 9.5 9.5 90 0.046 0.038 95 0.95 0.88 7.1 5.8 0.0022 0.0012
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-39

TABLE 4-13
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Point Source
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs --------SSOs -----
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units pounds tons pounds 43.74 12.15 2,008 35.45 12.47 4,468 28.67 9.76 4,282 6.75 1.82 1,516 5.08 0.87 420 ---15.85 1.25 649 15.92 1.33 565 2.28 0.11 50 218 1.47 0.66 97 149 1.91 0.48 324 12 1.50 0.27 149 20 0.32 0.05 29 5 13.37 3.01 464 5,269 ----0.95 0.23 37 354 52.85 2.12 2,266 198 ---------
FC billion counts 8,864 47 64 15 45 -494 1,145 Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year. A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-14 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)
Transportation
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units pounds tons pounds 19% 26% 12% 16% 27% 26% 13% 21% 25% 3% 4% 9% 2% 2% 2% ---7% 3% 4% 7% 3% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 3% 31% ----0% 0% 0% 2% 23% 5% 13% 1% -----
FC billion count 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% -3% 7% 1% 1% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-40
CSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-15
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Transportation
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.017 0.005 0.837 3.507 0.015 0.005 1.862 0.019 0.012 0.004 1.785 0.027 0.003 0.001 0.632 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.175 0.019
-----
0.007 0.001 0.270 0.206
0.007 0.001 0.236 0.477
0.001 0.000 0.021 0.091
0.001 0.000 0.040 0.062
0.001 0.000 0.135 0.005
0.001 0.000 0.062 0.008
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.005 0.001 0.193 2.131
-----
0.000 0.000 0.016 0.141
0.022 0.001 0.944 0.083
-----
-----
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-41
SSOs -----
Menomonee River
4.5.2 Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5) The Upper Menomonee River area is located in the north central portion of the Menomonee River watershed. Assessment points MN-2 and MN-5 are located along the mainstem in this area. Throughout these two assessment point areas, the mainstem of the Upper Menomonee River flows southwesterly for about six miles and then southeasterly for about two miles. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is located predominantly in the village of Germantown, but some of the area is located in the town of Germantown and the city of Mequon. The river begins just south of the Pioneer Road at CTH M, on the west side of the city of Mequon. It flows southwesterly across Bonniwell Road, past Wilderness Park and south across Holy Hill / Highland Roads. From there, it flows southwesterly for about mile where it changes direction and flows westerly towards the WCL/CN rail line, north of CTH F. After flowing west of the rail line, the river again flows southwesterly and passes north of Firemans Park and Kennedy Middle School. The river eventually flows past the Wisconsin & Southern Rail line (WSOR) on the north side of the Lake Park Golf Course and enters the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) (Figure 4-13), see following section. This is also the approximate location of the confluence with the West Branch Menomonee River (MN3), see page 77. With the exception of development in the area around CTHs F and G in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2), the river flows through agricultural lands and much of the mainstems riparian corridor exceeds 75 feet in this area. Throughout the area, the river flows along a predominantly natural channel. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) covers about 9.4 square miles (Figure 4-12). The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land use throughout the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (54%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 31% of the total land use. Low-density residential (defined on following table) along with transportation, institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, commercial, and high-density residential land uses compose the remaining 15%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 5% of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is impervious. TABLE 4-16 presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area.
4-42

TABLE 4-16
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-2) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
1 2
4-43
Pioneer Road
MN-2
! !
Mequon Road
Ap
pl
et on Av .
!
LEGEND
Land Use
1,000 2,000 Feet

December, 2009
! !
Mequon Road
Ap
pl e
to n Av .
!
MN-5
Main St.
!
n ai
St
.
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Waterbodies Watersheds
Land Use
Assessment Point Basins Civil Division
800 1,600 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). The municipalities include: the city of Mequon, the town of Germantown, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 86% of the 9.4 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The city of Mequon occupies nearly 9% of the assessment point area. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 5%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN2) assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Civil Division City of Mequon Town of Germantown Village of Germantown Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.9 0.4 8.1 9.4 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 9.01% 4.55% 86.44% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Upper Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within this assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline FC loads are commercial (47%) and residential (21%) land uses; the largest contributors of TP are industrial point sources (58%) and commercial land use (11%). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. In general, FC concentrations dont spike to above 5,000 levels as frequently as with other assessment point areas within the Menomonee River watershed. Fecal coliform concentrations tend to be highest during high flows; this suggests that nonpoint sources are contributing to FC concentrations in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). See Figure 4-14, Figure 4-15, and Figure 4-16. Note: the black line on Figure 4-14 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total phosphorus was also assessed in detail. The concentrations of TP were assessed as poor and they tend to be highest during low flow periods. This trend suggests that a background source of phosphorus could be present. The background source could be associated with agricultural drain tile discharges or releases from private onsite wastewater treatment systems (including agricultural lagoons).
4-46
Menomonee River
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations typically decline during the summer months, which could be a function of decreased water agitation and increased water temperature. The moderate variability in DO concentrations suggests that there may be algal growth, organic enrichment, and increased oxygen demand within the river. The concentrations of TSS were characterized as very good in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). The data indicate that TSS concentrations are generally low and they decline even lower during the winter months. Settling of suspended solids, especially within the wetlands located within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2), could be contributing to the low TSS concentrations. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-18. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-19 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2), TABLE 420 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-21 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point MN-1 is located upstream. The Baseline cumulative loads, including those from MN-1, are estimated. TABLE 4-22 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-23 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-24 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-47
Menomonee River @ Upper Menomonee River (RI 803)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-14

FIGURE 4-15

Upper Menomonee River Reach 803

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-16


TABLE 4-18
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 797 75 124 262 602 86 79 144 9.3 9.1 100 0.09 0.072 70 0.77 0.72 7.9 5.7 0.0024 0.0012
MN-2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Upper Menomonee (annual) River
4-51

TABLE 4-19
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Point Source
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs -----
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units pounds tons pounds 187.70 52.52 8,429 31.00 12.12 2,494 125.16 48.69 11,946 2.62 0.82 375 8.94 1.53 739 7.23 2.23 618 36.46 2.47 1,266 57.85 4.00 1,650 8.04 0.33 150 709 16.61 7.35 1,059 1,697 5.93 1.51 793 289 34.37 6.41 2,677 3,656 2.28 0.35 161 278 41.03 9.33 1,377 16,643 ----15.16 3.79 583 5,847 141.37 5.67 6,061 530 988.18 1.60 6,760 0.00 -----
FC billion counts 38,057 263 1,814 38 78 5,936 1,054 3,887 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-20 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Transportation
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD 11% 33% 18% 2% 8% 5% 7% 30% 25% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 2% 0% 1% 2% 2% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 3% 21% ----1% 2% 1% 7% 8% 4% 13% 1% 58% 1% 14% 0% ---------
FC 47% 0% 2% 0% 0% 7% 1% 5% 1% 2% 0% 5% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-52
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-21
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre
0.035 0.010 1.586 7.159
0.006 0.002 0.469 0.050
0.024 0.009 2.247 0.341
0.000 0.000 0.070 0.007
0.002 0.000 0.139 0.015
0.001 0.000 0.116 1.116
0.007 0.000 0.238 0.198
0.011 0.001 0.310 0.731
0.002 0.000 0.028 0.133
0.003 0.001 0.199 0.319
0.001 0.000 0.149 0.054
0.006 0.001 0.504 0.688
0.000 0.000 0.030 0.052
0.008 0.002 0.259 3.131
-----
0.003 0.001 0.110 1.100
0.027 0.001 1.140 0.100
0.186 0.000 1.272 0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-22 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Point Source Industrial
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

231.94 64.90 10,416 47,027 96.25 37.64 7,745 818 182.11 70.84 17,381 2,640 13.48 4.21 1,930 194 11.14 1.90 921 98
7.23 2.23 618 5,936
48.07 3.26 1,670 1,389
67.12 4.64 1,915 4,509
9.79 0.41 183 864
19.89 8.80 1,269 2,032
9.13 2.32 1,220 445
36.71 6.85 2,860 3,905
3.51 0.54 247 428
51.05 11.61 1,714 20,710
-----
16.09 4.02 619 6,209
186.22 7.47 7,984 698
988.18 1.60 6,760 0.00
Cumulative units are per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-53
SSOs
-----
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-23
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Point Source
Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs -----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 12% 28% 16% 48% 5% 16% 12% 1% 9% 30% 27% 3% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 6% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 3% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3% 21% ----1% 2% 1% 6% 9% 3% 12% 1% 50% 1% 10% 0% -----
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-24 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre

0.030 0.008 1.350 0.012 0.005 1.004 0.106 0.024 0.009 2.253 0.342 0.002 0.001 0.250 0.025 0.001 0.000 0.119 0.013 0.001 0.000 0.080 0.769 0.006 0.000 0.216 0.180 0.009 0.001 0.248 0.584 0.001 0.000 0.024 0.112 0.003 0.001 0.164 0.263 0.001 0.000 0.158 0.058 0.005 0.001 0.371 0.506 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.055 0.007 0.002 0.222 2.684
-----
0.002 0.001 0.080 0.805
0.024 0.001 1.035 0.090
0.128 0.000 0.876 0.000
-----
billion counts/acre 6.095
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year. Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-54
SSOs
-----
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) was also evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area contains three plant community sites. Their quality ranges from very poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would not result in reductions from Baseline TP and FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC loads in this assessment point area. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-25. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-26 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-27 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-28 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point MN-1 is upstream of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). TABLE 4-29 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-30 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-31 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The assessment of FC (annual) would deteriorate from moderate to poor. The assessment of FC (swimming season) would deteriorate from good to moderate. The assessment of the other parameter of focus, TP, would also remain poor. The other water quality parameters were already characterized as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there also wouldnt be any change in the assessment of flashiness (very 4-55
Menomonee River
good) in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-25 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Assessment Point MN-2 Upper Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 832 73 100 269 502 85 53 147 9.3 9.1 100 0.091 0.073 70 0.62 0.59 7.4 5.1 0.0024 0.0011
4-56

TABLE 4-26
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (C) Grass (B) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
181.04 50.94 8,348 33,881
12.52 4.41 1,578 16
49.01 16.69 7,319 109
1.12 0.30 251 2
14.51 2.48 1,200 127
7.73 2.36 664 5,542
47.81 3.77 1,957 1,490
115.72 9.70 4,109 8,324
8.39 0.41 186 806
10.83 4.90 713 1,000
2.10 0.53 357 13
11.57 2.08 1,144 156
1.06 0.15 95 16
92.64 21.34 3,214 34,240
-----
16.73 4.18 662 5,855
151.93 6.10 6,514 569
988.18 1.60 6,760 0.00
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year. A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-27 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

11% 39% 19% 37% 1% 3% 4% 0% 3% 13% 16% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 6% 3% 3% 4% 2% 7% 7% 9% 9% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 16% 7% 37% ----1% 3% 1% 6% 9% 5% 14% 1% 58% 1% 15% 0% ---------
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-57
SSOs
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-28
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Point Source
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.033 0.010 1.570 0.002 0.001 0.297 0.009 0.003 1.377 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.003 0.000 0.226 0.001 0.000 0.125 0.009 0.001 0.368 0.022 0.002 0.773 0.002 0.000 0.035 0.002 0.001 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.002 0.000 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.004 0.605
----
0.003 0.001 0.125
0.029 0.001 1.225
0.186 0.000 1.272
6.173 0.003 0.021 0.000 0.024 1.027 0.280 1.566 0.152 0.188 0.002 0.029 0.003 6.373 -1.076 0.107 0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-29 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Forest Point Source
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
224.77 63.09 10,356 42,745
47.98 16.88 6,046 63
77.68 26.45 11,601 173
7.87 2.12 1,766 17
19.59 3.34 1,620 172
7.73 2.36 664 5,542
63.66 5.01 2,607 1,984
131.64 11.03 4,674 9,469
10.67 0.52 237 1,024
12.30 5.56 810 1,149
4.01 1.01 682 25
13.07 2.35 1,293 177
1.38 0.20 124 21
106.00 24.36 3,678 39,508
-----
17.68 4.41 700 6,209
204.78 8.22 8,780 767
988.18 1.60 6,760 0.00
-----
Cumulative units are per year. A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-58
SSOs
-----
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-30
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

12% 35% 17% 39% 2% 9% 10% 0% 4% 15% 19% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0%
0% 1% 1% 5%
3% 3% 4% 2%
7% 6% 7% 9%
1% 0% 0% 1%
1% 3% 1% 1%
0% 1% 1% 0%
1% 1% 2% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
5% 14% 6% 36%
-----
1% 2% 1% 6%
11% 5% 14% 1%
51% 1% 11% 0%
TABLE 4-31 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Forest Point Source Industrial CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.029 0.008 1.342 5.540
0.006 0.002 0.784 0.008
0.010 0.003 1.504 0.022
0.001 0.000 0.229 0.002
0.003 0.000 0.210 0.022
0.001 0.000 0.086 0.718
0.008 0.001 0.338 0.257
0.017 0.001 0.606 1.227
0.001 0.000 0.031 0.133
0.002 0.001 0.105 0.149
0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.168 0.003 0.023
0.000 0.000 0.016 0.003
0.014 0.003 0.477 5.120
-----
0.002 0.001 0.091 0.805
0.027 0.001 1.138 0.099
0.128 0.000 0.876 0.000
4-59
SSOs
-----
SSOs
-----
Watershed Restoration Plan MN-5
Menomonee River
Assessment point MN-5 is located downstream of MN-2, along the mainstem of the Upper Menomonee River. On the upstream end of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5), the river flows southwesterly through Lake Park Swamp and the Lake Park Golf Course, past Germantown High School, across STH 167 and flows south through SchoenLauffen Park. About mile south of the park, the river crosses USH 41/45, just east of the Maple Lane overpass on USH 41/45. The river continues south along Maple Lane where it changes direction and flows southeasterly about mile from the Rivers Bend Golf Club. The river continues along the south and west sides of the club and then passes under CTH Q, just west of the USH 41/45 and CTH Q interchange. From this point, the river flows east along the south side of CTH Q. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) is located about mile south of the CTH Q interchange. At this point, the river flows into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9), see page 156. The Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4) is located to the west and flows into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) about mile south of the Maple Lane overpass on US 41/45, see page 92. MN-5s assessment point area encompasses 8.3 square miles (Figure 4-13). This assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. In general, the northern half of the area is developed with low density residential and the riparian buffer along the river is less than 25 feet. Farther southwest, the buffer width increases as the river flows through a predominantly agricultural area. Throughout the assessment point area, the river flows along a predominantly natural channel and the width of the buffer is less than 75 feet along nearly 60% of the stream within the area. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) contains a fair amount of commercial development in the village of Menomonee Falls. As noted above, the land uses throughout the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (32%). Low-density residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 24% of the total land use while transportation makes up nearly 19% of the total land use. Agriculture along with high-density residential, commercial, institutional and governmental, and manufacturing & industrial land uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 18% of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) is impervious. TABLE 4-32 presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5).
4-60
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-32 LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
1 2
Portions of two municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). The municipalities are the village of Germantown and the village of Menomonee Falls. Nearly 92% of the 8.3 square mile assessment point area is located within the village of Germantown. The village of Menomonee Falls occupies the remaining 8%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) is presented in TABLE 4-33.
TABLE 4-33 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Civil Division Village of Germantown Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 7.6 0.7 8.3 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 91.59% 8.41% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within this assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (44%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (13%). The largest contributors to FC are commercial (50%) and residential (24%)
4-61
Menomonee River
land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. While FC concentrations at this site tend to exhibit only infrequent spikes of above 5,000 counts, FC counts regularly exceed regulatory standards during periods with high flows. See Figure 4-17, Figure 4-18, and Figure 4-19. Note: the black line on Figure 4-17 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total phosphorus concentrations were characterized as poor. Within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5), concentrations of TP tend to peak during high flows and during low flows. This suggests that there are likely two prominent sources of TP within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area. The sources likely include a background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable during low flows and nonpoint contributions that increase the TP concentrations during high flows. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-34. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples exhibit chloride concentrations that are below those that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations measured in March consistently exceed the chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no winter data. Note that concentrations in the spring samples (which include snow melt and spring runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. However, chloride concentrations during the winter would be expected to be greater than those measured in spring. As the field data used to develop this figure do not include samples from the winter, it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions regarding chloride (Figure 4-20). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are 4-62
Menomonee River
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-35 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-36 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-37 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-4 are upstream of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from MN-1 through MN-4, are estimated. TABLE 4-38 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-39 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-40 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-63
Menomonee River @ County Line Road (RI 16)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-17

FIGURE 4-18

County Line Road (RI-16) Reach 823

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data
FIGURE 4-19


TABLE 4-34
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Assessment Point
MN-5 Menomonee River at WashingtonWaukesha County Line
Water Quality Indicator

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual)
Statistic
Baseline Condition
1,417 68 205 202 890 82 105 125 10.5 10.7 99 0.097 0.063 70 1.21 1.08 10.2 6 0.0041 0.0016
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-67
County Line Road (RI-16) Reach 823

Chloride
Flow Conditions 1000 Acute Toxicity (757 mg/L) Chronic Toxicity (395 mg/L) Box & Whiskers
C onc e ntra tion (m g/L)
100
10
High Flows
Moist Conditions
Mid-range Flows
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
1
Modeled Flow Data; Chloride Field Data

FIGURE 4-20
MN-5 FLOW BASED CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS


TABLE 4-35
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Point Source
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

598.86 167.56 26,893 21.61 9.31 1,440 22.09 9.66 1,484 7.90 2.88 810 4.67 0.78 378 11.48 3.54 982 70.96 4.78 2,447 180.32 12.35 5,098 47.08 1.95 876 4,145 33.56 14.84 2,140 3,429 3.10 0.76 399 145 2.98 0.54 226 308 3.09 0.47 217 375 143.27 32.58 4,810 58,122 49.83 18.50 2,138 6,303 64.60 16.14 2,485 24,921 82.84 3.31 3,539 309 ----1.42 0.04 20 1,551
121,420 180 316 113 40 9,432 2,036 12,005 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-36 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

44% 56% 48% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 5% 2% 4% 13% 4% 9% 3% 1% 2% 2% 5% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 9% 24% 4% 6% 4% 3% 5% 5% 4% 10% 6% 1% 6% 0% --------0% 0% 0% 1%
4-69
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-37
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
----Point Source CSOs ----0
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units Pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre
0.127 0.035 5.682 25.652
0.005 0.002 0.304 0.038
0.005 0.002 0.314 0.067
0.002 0.001 0.171 0.024
0.001 0.000 0.080 0.008
0.002 0.001 0.207 1.993
0.015 0.001 0.517 0.430
0.038 0.003 1.077 2.536
0.010 0.000 0.185 0.876
0.007 0.003 0.452 0.724
0.001 0.000 0.084 0.031
0.001 0.000 0.048 0.065
0.001 0.000 0.046 0.079
0.030 0.007 1.016 12.279
0.011 0.004 0.452 1.332
0.014 0.003 0.525 5.265
0.018 0.001 0.748 0.065
-----
0.000 0.000 0.004 0.328
TABLE 4-38 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial
Residential
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Ultra Low
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 1257.36 351.81 56,465 254,933 224.01 90.43 17,034 1,892 260.56 103.91 23,380 3,767 27.96 9.47 3,422 402 29.27 4.92 2,386 253 20.69 6.38 1,769 16,998 280.37 18.89 9,667 8,044 315.42 21.65 8,938 21,048 69.77 2.90 1,298 6,143 164.24 72.62 10,473 16,778 30.08 7.47 3,927 1,432 49.27 9.14 3,820 5,216 9.81 1.50 689 1,191 286.45 65.14 9,617 116,205 121.02 44.93 5,191 15,307 111.54 27.86 4,290 43,032 361.78 14.49 15,487 1,354 988.18 1.60 6,760 1.42 0.04 20 1,551
4-70
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-39
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (C) Pasture (B) Pasture (D) Residential Point Source
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
---------
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

27% 41% 31% 49% 5% 11% 9% 0% 6% 12% 13% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 6% 2% 5% 2% 7% 3% 5% 4% 2% 0% 1% 1% 4% 8% 6% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 8% 5% 23%
3% 5% 3% 3%
2% 3% 2% 8%
8% 2% 8% 0%
0% 0% 4% 0%
TABLE 4-40 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.066 0.018 2.969 13.405 0.012 0.005 0.896 0.099 0.014 0.005 1.229 0.198 0.001 0.000 0.180 0.021 0.002 0.000 0.125 0.013 0.001 0.000 0.093 0.894 0.015 0.001 0.508 0.423 0.017 0.001 0.470 1.107 0.004 0.000 0.068 0.323 0.009 0.004 0.551 0.882 0.002 0.000 0.206 0.075 0.003 0.000 0.201 0.274 0.001 0.000 0.036 0.063 0.015 0.003 0.506 6.110
0.006 0.002 0.273 0.805
0.006 0.001 0.226 2.263
0.019 0.001 0.814 0.071
0.052 0.000 0.355 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.082
4-71
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) was also evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. Assessments were performed on three plant communities within the assessment point area. The quality assessments of these areas range from poor to fair. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would not result in reductions from Baseline TP or FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC loads in this assessment point area. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-41. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-42 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5), TABLE 4-43 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-44 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-4 are upstream of MN-5. TABLE 4-45 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-46 presents the Year 2020 cumulative percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-47 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any appreciable change in the assessments of the parameters of focus (FC or TP). The assessments of FC (annual) and FC (swimming season) would both remain poor and moderate, respectively. The assessment of the other parameter of focus, TP, would also remain poor. The other water quality parameters would remain characterized as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. 4-72
Menomonee River
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there also wouldnt be any change in the assessment of flashiness (very good) within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-41 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Assessment Point
MN-5 Menomonee River at WashingtonWaukesha County Line
Water Quality Indicator

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual)
Statistic
Year 2020 Condition

1,362 67 180 214 657 81 79 134 10.5 10.7 99 0.102 0.065 69 0.95 0.85 9.7 5.5 0.0042 0.0016
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-73

TABLE 4-42
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

653.59 178.47 29,832 120,336 2.36 0.86 252 3 0.50 0.18 57 1 ----4.76 0.80 385 41 14.32 4.21 1,192 10,000 82.67 6.25 3,245 2,549 181.62 14.44 6,115 12,869 47.82 2.27 1,033 4,580 47.30 21.04 3,065 4,405 0.09 0.02 14 0 0.01 0.00 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 169.51 37.10 5,888 60,735
48.24 17.78 2,076 5,828
69.00 16.67 2,744 23,180
83.58 3.34 3,570 312
-----
0.47 0.01 7 517
TABLE 4-43 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

46% 59% 50% 49% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 4% 6% 2% 5% 1% 13% 5% 10% 5% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3% 7% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 10% 25% 3% 6% 3% 2% 5% 5% 5% 9% 6% 1% 6% 0% --------0% 0% 0% 0%
4-74
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-44
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.130 0.038 6.302 24.286 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 ----0.001 0.000 0.081 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.252 2.070 0.017 0.001 0.686 0.539 0.038 0.003 1.292 2.719 0.010 0.000 0.218 0.968 0.010 0.004 0.647 0.931 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.008 1.244 12.414
0.010 0.004 0.439 1.231
0.013 0.004 0.580 4.710
0.018 0.001 0.754 0.066
-----
-----
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
TABLE 4-45 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds tons pounds

1,333.89 361.86 60,603 83.20 29.51 10,179 110 97.25 33.30 14,131 217 9.56 2.60 2,022 21 44.01 7.42 3,593 381 24.95 7.33 2,075 17,326 366.57 27.91 14,492 11,323 404.63 32.85 13,912 28,839 77.08 3.66 1,663 7,381 191.10 85.76 12,483 17,791 7.81 1.93 47 15.07 2.70 203 1.45 0.21 130 23 394.69 87.69 13,629 143,543
116.40 43.24 5,048 13,671
118.19 28.34 4,666 40,027
392.99 15.74 16,824 1,471
988.18 1.60 6,760 0
0.00 0.01 7 517
1,294 1,486
billion counts 249,450
4-75
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-46
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

29% 47% 33% 47% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 8% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0%
1% 1% 1% 3%
8% 4% 8% 2%
9% 4% 8% 5%
2% 0% 1% 1%
4% 11% 7% 3%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 11% 7% 27%
2% 6% 3% 3%
3% 4% 3% 8%
8% 2% 9% 0%
21% 0% 4% 0%
TABLE 4-47 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Forest Point Source Industrial CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.070 0.019 3.187 13.116
0.004 0.002 0.535 0.006
0.005 0.002 0.743 0.011
0.001 0.000 0.106 0.001
0.002 0.000 0.189 0.020
0.001 0.000 0.109 0.911
0.019 0.001 0.762 0.595
0.021 0.002 0.731 1.516
0.004 0.000 0.087 0.388
0.010 0.005 0.656 0.935
0.000 0.000 0.068 0.002
0.001 0.000 0.078 0.011
0.000 0.000 0.007 0.001
0.021 0.005 0.717 7.548
0.006 0.002 0.265 0.719
0.006 0.001 0.245 2.105
0.021 0.001 0.885 0.077
0.052 0.000 0.355 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027
4-76
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.3 West Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-3)
Menomonee River
The West Branch Menomonee River is located in the northwestern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is located south of the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-1), see page 26. The West Branch Menomonee River begins on the west side of the village of Germantown, about mile east of the Holy Hill Road interchange on USH 41/45. From this point, the river flows easterly where Goldenthal Creek joins the river just west of CTH Y. From this point, the river continues to flow southeasterly, past Homestead Hollow County Park and St. Boniface Grade School, approximately following the WSOR rail line. The river eventually flows into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) at the intersection of CTH F and G. In general, the West Branch Menomonee River flows for about 2.5 miles through agricultural lands to its confluence with the mainstem of the Menomonee River. It is a predominantly natural channel with a relatively wide riparian margin. The width of the riparian margin exceeds 75 feet along nearly 70% of the river within this assessment point area. The West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Goldenthal Creek is included in this assessment point area (Figure 4-21). Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is predominantly agriculture (50%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 23% of the total land use. Highways and local roads contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 11% of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial along with low-density residential (defined on following table), high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 12% of the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is impervious. TABLE 4-48 presents the land uses within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area.
4-77
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-48 LAND USE IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
1 2
4-78
! !
MN-3
Ap pl
et on
Av .
!
LEGEND
Land Use
650 1,300 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Washington County are located within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The municipalities include: the town of Germantown, the town of Richfield, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 96% of the 4.5 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The towns of Germantown and Richfield occupy the remaining 4%. The extent of the civil divisions within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is presented in TABLE 4-49.
TABLE 4-49 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Civil Division Town of Germantown Town of Richfield Village of Germantown Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.2 4.3 4.5 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 0.05% 4.43% 95.52% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the West Branch Menomonee River are FC and DO. Within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline loads of FC are commercial (56%) and industrial (12%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. Fecal coliform concentrations exceed the regulatory standard about half the time, during high flows. See Figure 4-22, Figure 4-23, and Figure 4-24. Note: the black line on Figure 4-22 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The average concentration of DO exhibits typical declines during the summer months. However, the lower portions of the ranges decline more than would be expected. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD in the stream. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed. The TP concentrations were characterized as good and TSS was very good within West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The increase in concentrations of both TP and
4-80
Menomonee River
TSS with increasing flows suggests contributions from nonpoint sources. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-50. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-51 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-52 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-53 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-81
Menomonee River @ West Branch Menomonee River (RI 812)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-22

FIGURE 4-23

West Branch Menomonee River Reach 812

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-24


TABLE 4-50
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3)
Assessment Point MN-3 West Branch Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 1,167 77 159 250 712 90 101 144 9.4 9.5 91 0.053 0.039 91 1.08 0.96 10.6 8.1 0.0035 0.0013
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-85

TABLE 4-51
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units
pounds tons pounds 216.57 60.60 9,726 63.17 24.70 5,083 25.80 10.04 2,462 1.87 0.58 268 3.42 0.58 282 1.90 0.59 163 56.95 3.86 1,978 23.90 1.65 682 3.17 0.13 59 280 87.91 38.87 5,606 8,980 7.65 1.95 1,023 373 3.79 0.71 295 403 0.38 0.06 27 47 20.95 4.77 703 8,500 32.72 12.15 1,404 4,139 13.59 3.40 523 5,243 36.51 1.46 1,565 137 ---------
billion counts 43,910 537 374 27 30 1,562 1,646 1,605 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-52 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

36% 36% 31% 11% 15% 16% 4% 6% 8% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 9% 2% 6% 4% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 15% 23% 18% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% 11% 5% 7% 4% 5% 2% 2% 2% 7% 6% 1% 5% 0% -------------
4-86
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-53
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units
pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre
0.075 0.021 3.389
0.022 0.009 1.771
0.009 0.003 0.858
0.001 0.000 0.093
0.001 0.000 0.098
0.001 0.000 0.057
0.020 0.001 0.689
0.008 0.001 0.238
0.001 0.000 0.021
0.031 0.014 1.954
0.003 0.001 0.357
0.001 0.000 0.103
0.000 0.000 0.009
0.007 0.002 0.245
0.011 0.004 0.489
0.005 0.001 0.182
0.013 0.001 0.545
-----
billion 15.302 0.187 0.130 0.009 0.010 0.544 0.574 0.559 0.097 3.130 0.130 0.141 0.016 2.962 1.442 1.827 0.048 FC counts/acre Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-87
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. Five assessed plant communities are located within this assessment point area. The quality assessments of the plant communities range from very poor to fair. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC loads in the West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented TABLE 4-54. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-55 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-56 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-57 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any appreciable change in the assessments of the parameters of focus (FC and DO). Recall that FC was assessed as moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. The assessments of the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain unchanged as moderate and very good, respectively. The assessment of TP would remain as good and the assessment of TSS would remain as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness would deteriorate from good to
4-88
Menomonee River
poor at West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-54 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3)
Assessment Point MN-3 West Branch Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 1,161 76 127 262 612 87 70 147 9.4 9.4 91 0.053 0.038 91 0.79 0.71 10.0 7.2 0.0036 0.0012
4-89

TABLE 4-55
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

247.21 62.55 11,029 47,656 19.29 6.79 2,431 25 8.39 2.86 1,253 19 0.08 0.02 18 0.00 5.50 0.94 454 48 2.81 0.73 211 1,723 94.05 7.41 3,851 2,932 35.42 2.97 1,258 2,548 4.59 0.22 102 440 104.45 47.27 6,878 9,700 1.05 0.27 179 7 0.73 0.13 73 10 0.05 0.01 4 1 36.90 7.70 1,288 12,756
30.92 11.75 1,370 3,522
17.52 3.80 681 5,703
42.29 1.70 1,813 159
-----
-----
TABLE 4-56 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

38% 40% 34% 55% 3% 4% 7% 0% 1% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 14% 5% 12% 3% 5% 2% 4% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 16% 30% 21% 11% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 5% 4% 15% 5% 7% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 7% 6% 1% 6% 0% -------------
4-90
SSOs
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-57
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.072 0.022 3.844 0.007 0.002 0.847 0.003 0.001 0.437 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.158 0.001 0.000 0.074 0.033 0.003 1.342 0.012 0.001 0.438 0.002 0.000 0.035 0.036 0.016 2.397 0.000 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.003 0.449
0.011 0.004 0.477
0.005 0.001 0.237
0.015 0.001 0.632
----
13.216 0.009 0.007 0.000 0.017 0.544 1.022 0.888 0.153 3.381 0.002 0.003 0.000 3.942 1.227 1.656 0.055 -Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-91
SSOs
-----
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.4 Willow Creek (Assessment Point MN-4)
Menomonee River
Willow Creek is located in the northwestern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) encompasses about 5.9 square miles. This tributary flows northeasterly for almost 2.5 miles before its confluence with the Menomonee River. The creek begins in the village of Menomonee Falls at CTH Y, about a mile south of CTH Q. The creek flows northeasterly across CTH Q into the village of Germantown and towards STH 175, where it joins with an unnamed tributary that flows easterly from the town of Richfield, past Weidenbach Park. From its confluence with the unnamed tributary, Willow Creek approximately follows CTH Y for about a mile and then changes direction and flows east under STH 167 and into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). Held Maple Woods and Kleinman Swamp are located within mile of tributaries to Willow Creek. With the exception of some low density residential development, most of the creek flows through agricultural and open space lands. The channel is predominantly natural and the Willow Creek assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. The riparian margin is relatively wide throughout the area, with the margin along nearly 60% of the reach exceeding 75 feet. However, there are a few reaches where the width of the riparian margin is less than 25 feet. The narrow riparian margins can mostly be attributed to farming right up to the edge of the river. The downstream point of the Willow Creek assessment point area is located approximately mile southwest of USH 45/STH 167 interchange in the village of Germantown (Figure 4-25). Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4) is predominantly agriculture (38%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses comprise nearly 28% of the total land use within the assessment point area while lowdensity residential (defined on following table) comprises nearly 21% of the total land use within the area. Transportation along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 13%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 9% of the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) is impervious. TABLE 4-58 presents the land uses within the Willow Creek assessment point area.
4-92

TABLE 4-58
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)

1 2
4-93
MN-4
Ap pl et on
Av
.
!
LEGEND
Land Use
Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utlities Manufacturing and Industrial
650 1,300 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4). The municipalities include: the towns of Lisbon and Richfield, and the villages of Germantown and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 57% of the 5.9 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The town of Richfield occupies nearly 23% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the town of Lisbon occupy the remaining 20%. The extent of the civil divisions within the assessment point area for MN-4 is presented in TABLE 4-59.
TABLE 4-59 CIVIL DIVISION IN THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Civil Division Town of Lisbon Town of Richfield Village of Germantown Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.3 1.4 3.4 0.8 5.9 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 5.27% 23.15% 57.24% 14.34% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameter of focus in Willow Creek is FC. Within the Willow Creek assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (45%) and residential (30%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Willow Creek assessment point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN4). The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. In contrast, the measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceeded the regulatory standard about 75% of the time. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations at MN-4 are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. See Figure 4-26, Figure 4-27, and Figure 4-28. Note: the black line on Figure 4-26 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments of DO, TP, and TSS were performed. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The data indicated that DO declined during the summer months more than would normally be expected. The decline could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within the Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4). Concentrations of TP were assessed as good and TSS was assessed as very good. Both of these 4-95
Menomonee River
parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-60. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables; BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-61 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-62 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-63 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads for MN-4 on a per acre basis.
4-96
Menomonee River @ Willow Creek (RI 820)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-26

FIGURE 4-27

Willow Creek Reach 820

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-28

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-60 BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment Point MN-4 Willow Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 1,244 76 183 218 794 87 125 125 8.9 9.1 96 0.036 0.025 93 0.73 0.65 9.1 7.3 0.0030 0.0012
4-100

TABLE 4-61
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

209.99 58.76 9,430 42.97 18.79 2,765 30.56 13.36 2,052 4.70 1.80 415 10.05 1.66 805 0.08 0.03 7 104.38 6.98 3,572 44.08 3.01 1,244 9.73 0.40 181 854 22.87 10.11 1,459 2,337 10.21 2.44 1,284 468 5.80 1.05 439 600 2.84 0.43 197 341 71.17 16.19 2,389 28,873 38.46 14.28 1,650 4,865 17.26 4.31 664 6,659 56.22 2.24 2,399 210 ---------
42,577 357 437 67 85 69 2,973 2,929 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-62 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

31% 38% 30% 6% 12% 9% 4% 9% 7% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 15% 4% 12% 6% 2% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3% 6% 5% 1% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 10% 10% 8% 30% 6% 9% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 7% 8% 1% 8% 0% -------------
4-101
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-63
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs -----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.057 0.016 2.549 11.508
0.012 0.005 0.747 0.097
0.008 0.004 0.555 0.118
0.001 0.000 0.112 0.018
0.003 0.000 0.217 0.023
0.000 0.000 0.002 0.019
0.028 0.002 0.966 0.803
0.012 0.001 0.336 0.792
0.003 0.000 0.049 0.231
0.006 0.003 0.394 0.632
0.003 0.001 0.347 0.127
0.002 0.000 0.119 0.162
0.001 0.000 0.053 0.092
0.019 0.004 0.646 7.804
0.010 0.004 0.446 1.315
0.005 0.001 0.179 1.800
0.015 0.001 0.648 0.057
-----
4-102
SSOs -----
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. The Willow Creek assessment point area contains four assessed plant communities. Two of these plant communities were assessed as poor and very poor and two were assessed as good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 4% reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from this assessment point area. Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC loads in the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4). The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Willow Creek assessment point area are presented in TABLE 4-64. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-65 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for MN-4, TABLE 4-66 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-67 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC (annual) would deteriorate from moderate to poor and that there wouldnt be any appreciable change in the assessment of FC during the swimming season (good). There also wouldnt be any change in the assessments of minimum and maximum DO concentrations (good and very good, respectively). The assessment of the concentrations of TP would remain good and TSS would remain very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Willow Creek Assessment point area (MN-4) would
4-103
Menomonee River
deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-64 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment Point MN-4 Willow Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 1,196 75 161 233 607 86 99 136 8.9 9.1 94 0.037 0.024 93 0.58 0.51 8.8 6.7 0.0030 0.0012
4-104

TABLE 4-65
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

208.33 57.75 9,386 38,714 13.57 4.97 1,450 18 10.68 3.82 1,220 24 1.61 0.46 237 4 14.16 2.34 1,133 120 0.08 0.02 7 61 126.20 9.24 4,790 3,858 55.94 4.41 1,865 3,953 14.00 0.64 292 1,337 27.06 11.88 1,731 2,536 2.66 0.63 419 15 1.26 0.22 119 16 0.02 0.00 2 0 82.28 18.53 2,775 30,544
37.24 13.72 1,602 4,321
13.99 3.46 541 4,934
62.33 2.49 2,660 232
-----
TABLE 4-66 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

31% 43% 31% 43% 2% 4% 5% 0% 2% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 7% 16% 4% 8% 3% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1% 1% 4% 9% 6% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 14% 9% 34% 6% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3% 2% 5% 9% 2% 9% 0% -------------
4-105
SSOs
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-67
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.056 0.016 2.537 0.004 0.001 0.392 0.003 0.001 0.330 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.004 0.001 0.306 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.034 0.002 1.295 0.015 0.001 0.504 0.004 0.000 0.079 0.007 0.003 0.468 0.001 0.000 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.005 0.750
0.010 0.004 0.433
0.004 0.001 0.146
0.017 0.001 0.719
----
10.444 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.033 0.016 1.043 1.068 0.361 0.686 0.004 0.004 0.000 8.245 1.168 1.331 0.063 -Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-106
SSOs
-----
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.5 Nor-X-Way Channel (Assessment Point MN-6)
Menomonee River
Nor-X-Way is located in the north central portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary flows approximately four miles southwesterly to its confluence with the mainstem. The Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area encompasses 4.2 square miles. The channel begins in the village of Germantown about mile south of the intersection of CTHs F and M. From there it flows southeasterly into the city of Mequon and then flows south of STH 167. The channel continues to flow southeasterly for about mile and then changes direction and flows southwesterly and crosses back into the village of Germantown and crosses Donges Bay Road about mile east of STH 145. From this point, the channel flows southwest and crosses into Waukesha County at STH 145. The channel flows south for about mile to the areas downstream terminus at the WSOR rail spur located in the vicinity of the Menomonee Falls Industrial Park. At this point, the Nor-X-Way channel enters the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-9) (see page 156), approximately mile northeast of USH 45/STH 74 interchange in the village of Menomonee Falls (Figure 4- 29). The channel flows through a wide range of land types. Agricultural and recreational land uses dominate in the north portion of the area. In this area, the riparian margin is wide and typically exceeds 75 feet. In the south-central portion of the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area, the channel predominantly flows through low density residential with some manufacturing land uses. The width of the riparian margin is narrower in this area, and in some reaches the channel is concrete-lined. Overall, the width of the riparian margin exceeds 75 feet along more than 60% of the watercourse in this assessment point area. There is a dam located on a tributary to the Nor-X-Way Channel west of STH 145 and less than mile north of the intersection of STH 145 and CTH Q. Beyond the land use adjacent to the channel, the land use within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (44%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 26% of the total land use while low-density residential (defined on following table) makes up nearly 12%. Transportation along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 18%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 12% of the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-68 presents the land uses within the Nor-X-Way channel assessment point area.
4-107

TABLE 4-68
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)

1 2
4-108
! !
Mequon Road
Main St.
!
MN-6
Brown Deer Rd.
LEGEND
Land Use
850 1,700 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties are located within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The municipalities include: the city of Mequon, the village of Germantown, and the village of Menomonee Falls. Approximately 71% of the 4.2 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The city of Mequon and village of Menomonee Falls occupy the remaining 15% and 14%, respectively. The extent of the civil divisions within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-69.
TABLE 4-69 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Civil Division City of Mequon Village of Germantown Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.6 3.0 0.6 4.2 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 15.34% 70.76% 13.90% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area are FC and TSS. The largest contributors to Baseline FC loads are commercial (60%) and residential (20%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The largest contributors for TSS are commercial land use (38%) and crops grown on hydrologic group C soils (24%). However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The data suggest that nonpoint sources contribute to high concentrations of FC. This is supported by the fact that FC concentrations tend to exceed the regulatory standard during high flows. The concentrations of TSS were also assessed as poor and appear to be a function of nonpoint sources. See Figure 4-30, Figure 4-31, and Figure 4-32. Note: the black line on Figure 4-30 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments of DO and TP were also performed. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed
4-110
Menomonee River
as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations tend to decline during the summer months, but generally did not decline below the regulatory standard. The decline in DO could be exacerbated by the concrete-lined channel within the assessment point area The concentrations of TP were assessed as good. Nonpoint sources appear to contribute to higher concentrations of TP within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The concentration of TP decreased during very high flows, which may indicate that TP is diluted during heavy storms. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-70. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Nor-X-Way assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. Actual water quality data are available through the MMSDs H2O Info website. Conductivity data are presented on Figure 4-33. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for long periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment point area. Dissolved oxygen data are presented on Figure 4-34. The DO exhibits similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0 mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet weather induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-35). The temperature data are also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-36). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-71 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-72 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-73 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-111
Menomonee River @ Nor-X-Way Channel (RI 834)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-30

FIGURE 4-31

Nor-X-Way Channel Reach 834

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-32

Menomonee River
TABLE 4-70 BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Assessment Point MN-6 Nor-X-Way Channel Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 3,261 72 208 200 1,962 83 113 114 10.0 9.9 100 0.056 0.038 90 0.75 0.70 16.0 4.3 0.0037 0.0011
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-115
FIGURE 4-33
MN-6 MEASURED CONDUCTIVITY

FIGURE 4-34
MN-6 MEASURED DISSOLVED OXYGEN

FIGURE 4-35
MN-6 MEASURED TURBIDITY

FIGURE 4-36
MN-6 MEASURED TEMPERATURE


TABLE 4-71
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Point Source
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

489.36 191.65 21,976 11.74 14.98 391 90.24 119.92 3,116 4.83 5.04 187 12.42 2.02 549 4.06 1.76 347 48.31 3.33 731 232.28 23.42 2,960 3.43 0.25 31 187 126.29 78.49 8,052 32,327 1.75 0.33 132 72 25.18 6.89 999 2,004 1.52 0.48 60 126 78.82 25.19 2,646 80,677 44.44 23.15 1,908 14,091 13.69 4.81 527 13,240 37.17 1.75 903 84 161.34 0.14 450 0 -----
248,649 66 850 39 80 8,360 885 9,929 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-72 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

35% 38% 48% 1% 3% 1% 7% 24% 7% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 17% 5% 6% 0% 0% 0% 9% 16% 18% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 5% 6% 20% 3% 5% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 0% 2% 0% 12% 0% 1% 0% ---------
4-120
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-73
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.174 0.068 7.814 88.406
0.004 0.005 0.139 0.024
0.032 0.043 1.108 0.302
0.002 0.002 0.067 0.014
0.004 0.001 0.195 0.028
0.001 0.001 0.123 2.972
0.017 0.001 0.260 0.315
0.083 0.008 1.052 3.530
0.001 0.000 0.011 0.066
0.045 0.028 2.863 11.494
0.001 0.000 0.047 0.025
0.009 0.002 0.355 0.713
0.001 0.000 0.021 0.045
0.028 0.009 0.941 28.684
0.016 0.008 0.678 5.010
0.005 0.002 0.187 4.707
0.013 0.001 0.321 0.030
0.057 0.000 0.160 0.000
4-121
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There is one assessed plant community within the Nor-X-Way assessment point area. The quality of this plant community was assessed as fairly good. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 34% reduction from Baseline FC loads and a 28% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area are presented in TABLE 4-74. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-75 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads for MN-6. TABLE 4-76 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load. TABLE 4-77 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis Water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there would be an improvement in the assessment of TSS due to the 28% reduction in TSS loads. The assessment would change from poor to very good. However, despite the 34% reduction in FC loading, there wouldnt be any appreciable improvement in the assessment of FC. The assessments of FC (annual measure) and FC (swimming season) would remain poor and moderate, respectively. Water quality modeling also indicates that the assessments of TP and DO would remain the same. The assessment of TP would remain as good. During the warm weather months, the 4-122
Menomonee River
minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at MN-6 would deteriorate from good to moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-74 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Assessment Point MN-6 Nor-X-Way Channel Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Year 2020 Condition 2,124 72 118 250 875 83 54 141 9.9 9.7 100 0.055 0.036 89 0.49 0.44 10.6 3.1 0.0035 0.0008
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-123
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-75
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

474.48 163.25 20,701 143,730 0.18 0.17 11 0 2.46 2.38 164 4 ----13.50 2.20 597 87 6.15 2.35 498 7,479 49.50 3.16 779 613 266.60 24.97 3,550 7,713 5.83 0.39 56 216 188.90 104.64 11,545 29,440 0.88 0.16 84 5 3.71 0.92 186 37 1.28 0.36 64 14 113.79 32.19 3,791 68,498
38.70 17.97 1,592 7,471
13.09 4.01 507 7,185
41.78 1.97 1,015 94
161.34 0.14 450 0
TABLE 4-76 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

34% 45% 45% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% ----1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 4% 1% 2% 0% 19% 7% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 29% 25% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 9% 8% 25% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 0% 12% 0% 1% 0% ---------
4-124
SSOs
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-77
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.161 0.058 7.360 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.058 ---0.005 0.001 0.212 0.002 0.001 0.177 0.018 0.001 0.277 0.095 0.009 1.262 0.002 0.000 0.020 0.067 0.037 4.105 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.011 1.348
0.014 0.006 0.566
0.004 0.001 0.180
0.015 0.001 0.361
0.057 0.000 0.160
49.740 0.000 0.001 -0.031 2.646 0.218 2.742 0.077 10.467 0.002 0.013 0.005 24.019 2.656 2.474 0.033 0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-125
SSOs
-----
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.6 Lilly Creek (Assessment Point MN-7)
Menomonee River
Lilly Creek is located in the western portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary flows northerly for about 3 miles before reaching its confluence with the Menomonee River. The Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) encompasses about 5.7 square miles. The creek begins in Willowood Park on the south side of the village of Menomonee Falls, about a half mile southeast of the intersection of CTHs YY and VV. Glass-Glick Woods, a critical species habitat area, is about mile west of the headwaters. From this point, the creek flows northerly across CTY VV, the Union Pacific rail line, Mill Road and Good Hope Road. Once the creek crosses Good Hope Road, it flows northerly across Appleton Avenue and enters Rivers Edge Park and the North Hills Country Club on the east side of the village of Menomonee Falls. At the park, the creek flows into the Upper Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-9), see page 156. Lilly Creek and its tributaries predominantly flow through low density residential areas. The widths of the riparian margin are relatively narrow. Only about 30% of stream within the Lilly Creek assessment point area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Lilly Creek assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (43%). Transportation land use makes up nearly 19% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 17% of the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 21%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 20% of the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) is impervious. TABLE 4-78 presents the land uses within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (Figure 4-37).
4-126

TABLE 4-78
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)

1 2
4-127
Main St.
!
MN-7
! !
Capitol Dr.
LEGEND
Land Use
800 1,600 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Only one municipality within Waukesha County is located within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). The entire 5.7 square mile area is located within the village of Menomonee Falls (TABLE 4-79).
TABLE 4-79 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Civil Division Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 5.7 5.7 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 100.00% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Lilly Creek are DO, FC and TSS. Within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7), the largest contributors to current Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (40%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (28%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (52%) and residential (28%) land uses. Commercial (56%) and industrial (15%) land uses are the predominant contributors to TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceeded the regulatory standard about 75% of the time. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The data also indicate that FC concentrations tend to unexpectedly increase during late summer months. The source of FC responsible for this increase is not readily apparent from the data. See Figure 4-38, Figure 4-39, and Figure 4-40. Note: the black line on Figure 4-38 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. The detailed analysis of TP data indicated that TP concentrations were assessed as good and TSS concentrations were assessed as poor and that both parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details
4-129
Menomonee River
on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). It is normal for DO concentrations to decline during the summer due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warm water; however, the concentrations of DO within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) during colder months decline more than would be expected. This could be a function of increased BOD, including in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO also declined during low flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within Lilly Creek. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on the annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-80. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-81 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-82 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-83 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-130
Menomonee River @ Lilly Creek (RI 841)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-38

FIGURE 4-39

Lilly Creek Reach 841

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-40


TABLE 4-80
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment Point MN-7 Lilly Creek 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 2,427 69 359 89
1,416 81 265 38
9.3 9.3 92 0.063 0.040 85 0.74 0.67 19.0 7.9 0.0051 0.0013
4-134

TABLE 4-81
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

515.87 202.03 23,167 4.72 2.33 242 43.17 21.58 2,360 0.57 0.22 41 5.17 0.71 316 5.41 2.34 462 67.58 3.33 1,481 366.72 20.93 6,390 3.84 0.14 43 213 87.06 54.11 5,551 8,914 1.25 0.26 145 74 4.32 0.73 237 379 ----135.56 43.33 4,552 55,503 ----19.34 6.79 744 7,481 34.12 1.03 907 136 ---------
TABLE 4-82 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

40% 56% 50% 0% 1% 1% 3% 6% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 5% 1% 3% 28% 6% 14% 0% 0% 0% 7% 15% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% ----10% 12% 10% 28% ----1% 2% 2% 4% 3% 0% 2% 0% -------------
4-135
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-83
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (C) Pasture (B) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads
TP TSS BOD
Units
pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre
0.142 0.056 6.364
0.001 0.001 0.067
0.012 0.006 0.648
0.000 0.000 0.011
0.001 0.000 0.087
0.001 0.001 0.127
0.019 0.001 0.407
0.101 0.006 1.755
0.001 0.000 0.012
0.024 0.015 1.525
0.000 0.000 0.040
0.001 0.000 0.065
----
0.037 0.012 1.250
----
0.005 0.002 0.204
0.009 0.000 0.249
----
FC billion counts/acre 28.804 0.013 0.143 0.001 0.023 1.224 0.393 4.523 0.059 2.449 0.020 0.104 -15.248 -2.055 0.037 --Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-136
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as moderate. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences somewhat normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow somewhat supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are two assessed plant communities located in the Lilly Creek assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities range from poor to fair. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17% reduction for Baseline TP loads, a 48% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 31% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC load in the Lilly Creek assessment point area. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data at the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) are presented in TABLE 4-84. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-85 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-86 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-87 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 48% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and remain moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of TP would also remain unchanged as good. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessment of TSS from poor to very good. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the 4-137
Menomonee River
Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any change in the assessment of flashiness within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) (moderate). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-84 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment Point MN-7 Lilly Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 1,211 72 190 210 547 84 132 115 9.2 9.2 92 0.055 0.037 87 0.54 0.49 12.9 5.2 0.0038 0.0009
4-138

TABLE 4-85
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

448.72 147.92 18,976 52,481 ------------3.89 0.53 238 62 6.51 2.36 518 3,005 57.99 2.53 1,291 818 308.80 15.68 5,475 9,266 3.12 0.10 36 116 74.43 39.35 4,464 4,341 ------------128.31 34.44 4,094 29,712
-----
16.65 4.90 607 3,654
32.13 0.97 854 128
-----
TABLE 4-86 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

42% 59% 52% 51% ------------0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 5% 1% 4% 1% 29% 6% 15% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 16% 12% 4% ------------12% 14% 11% 29% ----2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 0% 2% 0% -------------
4-139
SSOs
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-87
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.121 0.041 5.213 ---------0.001 0.000 0.065 0.002 0.001 0.142 0.016 0.001 0.355 0.085 0.004 1.504 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.011 1.226 ---------0.034 0.009 1.125
----
0.004 0.001 0.167
0.009 0.000 0.234
----
14.175 ---0.017 0.821 0.225 2.546 0.032 1.192 ---8.064 -0.990 0.035 ---Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-140
SSOs
----
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.7 Butler Ditch (Assessment Point MN-8)
Menomonee River
Butler Ditch is located in the western portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary flows southerly for about 1.5 miles, easterly for about one mile and then northerly for about 1.5 miles before its confluence with the Menomonee River. The Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is located immediately south of the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) and encompasses about 5.7 square miles. Three main tributaries converge to form the Butler Ditch. Two tributaries begin south of Capital Drive, including one that begins in Arrowhead Lake Park in the city of Brookfield and one that begins about a mile south of the Wisconsin Memorial Park Cemetery and flows northerly through Lamplighter Park. The third tributary begins in Willowood Park and flows southerly through the Theatre Swamp then changes direction just north of Capital Drive and flows easterly. All three tributaries converge in the vicinity of Lilly Heights Park, located adjacent to the Elmbrook School Administrative building on the east side of the city of Brookfield. From this point, Butler Ditch flows northerly across CTH K into the village of Menomonee Falls Business Park. Once Butler Ditch reaches Menomonee Falls, it flows northeasterly and enters the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area on the east side of the village of Butler, see page 156. In general, Butler Ditch flows through low-density residential areas in a predominantly natural channel. The width of the riparian margin varies and ranges from greater than 75 feet to less than 25 feet. Overall, about 46% of the stream in this assessment point area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Butler Ditch assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. As noted above, the land use within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (56%). Transportation land use makes up nearly 20% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 13% of the total land use within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 11%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 21% of the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is impervious. TABLE 4-88 presents the land uses within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (Figure 4-41).
4-141

TABLE 4-88
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)

1 2
4-142
MN-8
! !
Capitol Dr.
Bluemound Rd.
LEGEND
Land Use
800 1,600 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the village of Butler, and the village of Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 5.7 square mile area is located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Menomonee Falls occupies just under 30% of the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). The village of Butler occupies less than 1%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is presented in TABLE 4-89.
TABLE 4-89 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Civil Division City of Brookfield Village of Butler Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 4.0 0.0 1.7 5.7 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 70.09% 0.26% 29.65% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the area, the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (42%) and commercial land use (35%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (48%) and residential (30%) land uses. Commercial (64%) and residential (16%) land uses are the largest contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceeded the regulatory standard. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The data also indicate that FC concentrations tend to unexpectedly increase during late summer months. The source of FC responsible for this increase is not readily apparent from the data. See Figure 4-42, Figure 4-43, and Figure 4-44. Note: the black line on Figure 4-42 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total phosphorus and TSS were also analyzed in detail. The assessment of TP concentrations was moderate and assessment of TSS concentrations was poor. The data suggest that both of these parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources within the Butler Ditch assessment 4-144
Menomonee River
point area (MN-8). The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on DO data. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The range of DO concentrations is wider than would normally be expected. This could be a function of increased BOD, including in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO also declined during low flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-90. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Butler Ditch assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-91 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-92 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-93 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-145
Menomonee River @ Butler Ditch (RI 855)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-42

FIGURE 4-43

Butler Ditch Reach 855

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-44


TABLE 4-90
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment Point MN-8 Butler Ditch Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 2,425 64 424 82 1,325 79 286 31 9.6 9.3 93 0.065 0.042 85 0.68 0.62 17.5 7.9 0.0046 0.0014
4-149

TABLE 4-91
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

543.05 222.44 24,388 1.13 0.54 65 3.19 1.60 174 ---1.69 0.25 109 2.65 1.20 227 66.41 2.95 1,334 654.11 28.45 9,276 1.83 0.05 17 101 43.61 28.07 2,780 4,467 0.15 0.03 18 9 2.46 0.41 132 209 ----166.15 55.17 5,579 68,996 ----17.16 6.27 660 6,640 43.42 1.17 1,178 162 ----5.55 0.16 78 6,070
110,418 14 37 -28 2,186 1,377 29,568 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-92 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

35% 64% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ---0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 3% 42% 8% 20% 0% 0% 0% 3% 8% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----11% 16% 12% 30% ----1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 0% 3% 0% --------0% 0% 0% 3%
FC 48% 0% 0% -0% 1% 1% 13% 0% 2% 0% 0% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-150
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-93
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.151 0.062 6.765 30.629
0.000 0.000 0.018 0.004
0.001 0.000 0.048 0.010
-----
0.000 0.000 0.030 0.008
0.001 0.000 0.063 0.606
0.018 0.001 0.370 0.382
0.181 0.008 2.573 8.202
0.001 0.000 0.005 0.028
0.012 0.008 0.771 1.239
0.000 0.000 0.005 0.002
0.001 0.000 0.037 0.058
-----
0.046 0.015 1.548 19.139
-----
0.005 0.002 0.183 1.842
0.012 0.000 0.327 0.045
-----
0.002 0.000 0.022 1.684
4-151
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as moderate. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences somewhat normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow somewhat supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There is one assessed plant community within the Butler Ditch assessment point area. The quality of this plant community was assessed as good. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17% reduction for Baseline TP loads, a 44% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 27% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). Based upon the calibrated models, there is no evidence of significant unknown source FC load in the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-94. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-95 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-96 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-97 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 44% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and moderate for the swimming season measures within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). In contrast, the reduction in TP and TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TP from moderate to good and TSS from poor to very good. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any change in the assessment of flashiness within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) (moderate). See 4-152
Menomonee River
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-94 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment Point MN-8 Butler Ditch Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 1,297 68 228 178 700 82 152 98 9.6 9.3 93 0.057 0.038 87 0.59 0.53 12.6 5.6 0.0035 0.0010
4-153

TABLE 4-95
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (D) Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Point Source Industrial
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

479.30 165.02 20,548 59,897 ------------1.27 0.23 90 21 4.40 1.66 350 2,157 54.12 2.25 1,125 766 506.69 20.67 7,461 15,697 1.35 0.04 13 51 28.72 15.98 1,732 1,713 ------------153.01 42.39 5,056 38,133
-----
15.70 4.77 587 3,663
41.60 1.65 1,573 156
-----
5.08 0.15 72 5,553
TABLE 4-96 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (D)
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

37% 65% 53% 47% ------------0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% 39% 8% 19% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 4% 1% ------------12% 17% 13% 30% ----1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 4%
4-154
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-97
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.127 0.046 5.700 ---------0.000 0.000 0.025 0.001 0.000 0.097 0.015 0.001 0.312 0.141 0.006 2.070 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.481 ---------0.040 0.012 1.402
----
0.004 0.001 0.163
0.012 0.000 0.436
----
0.001 0.000 0.020
15.806 ---0.006 0.591 0.213 4.354 0.014 0.475 ---10.198 -0.976 0.043 --0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-155
SSOs
Menomonee River
4.5.8 Middle Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-9 and MN-12) The Middle Menomonee River mainstem is located in the central portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This area of the watershed is represented by assessment point areas MN-9 and MN-12. Assessment point area MN-9s encompasses 12.8 square miles and extends downstream to a point that is located at the confluence with Butler Ditch. This downstream point is approximately located on the western boundary of the village of Butler. Assessment point MN9s assessment point area also includes a three mile segment of the Nor-X-Way channel. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem begins in northeastern Waukesha and northwestern Milwaukee counties, at about CTH Q. As noted earlier, the Middle Menomonee River is downstream of the northern reach of the Nor-X-Way Channel and the Upper Menomonee River mainstem. The mainstem flows southeasterly through the village of Menomonee Falls, along the Menomonee River Parkway, and through Lime Kiln Park, which is located south of Main Street. From this point, the mainstem flows easterly towards Rotary Park and its confluence with the Nor-X-Way Channel located mile south of STH 74 interchange on USH 41/45. Upstream of the confluence, the mainstem passes about one mile northeast of the Menomonee Falls Tamarack Preserve. Downstream of the confluence, the mainstem changes direction and flows southeast past the Menomonee Falls High School, along the west side of Rivers Edge Park and through the North Hills Country Club. From this point, it flows easterly into Milwaukee County and southerly along the county line through Harbinger Woods, south of Good Hope Road, and through the Menomonee River Swamp-North before changing direction and flowing back into Waukesha County. At CTH VV, in the vicinity of the village of Butler, the river flows into the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12), see following section. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem flows through recreation, natural areas, and open space areas to the north and mostly low density residential with some industrial land uses to the south. In general, the mainstem flows through a natural channel within the Menomonee River Parkway. In the vicinity of STH 74, there is a mile reach where the channel bottom is bedrock. The width of the riparian margins varies, with about 40% exceeding 75 feet. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains three known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land uses within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (38%). Low-density residential (defined on following table) land use makes up nearly 21% of the total land use while transportation makes up nearly 20% of the total land use. Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land uses compose the remaining 21% (Figure 4-45). Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 20% of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is impervious. TABLE 4-98 presents the land uses within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
4-156
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-98 LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
1 2
4-157
Ap p
le
to n Av .
!
Main St.
!
A pp le n to A v.
MN-9
LEGEND
Land Use
800 1,600 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties are located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). The municipalities include: the cities of Mequon and Milwaukee, and the villages of Butler, Germantown, and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 12.8 square mile assessment point area is located within the village of Menomonee Falls. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 26% of the area. The village of Germantown, the city of Mequon, and the village of Butler occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is presented in TABLE 4-99.
TABLE 4-99 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Civil Division City of Mequon City of Milwaukee Village of Butler Village of Germantown Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.3 9.0 12.8 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 1.11% 25.76% 0.63% 2.01% 70.49% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (39%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (20%). The largest contributors of FC loads are commercial (56%) and residential (17%) land uses. Commercial (48%) and transportation (14%) land uses are the largest contributors of loads of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. The Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is composed of multiple modeling areas, some of these areas are not affected by unknown sources. However, with other modeling areas, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the area. These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
4-159
Menomonee River
presented in Appendix 4C. See Figure 4-46, Figure 4-47, and Figure 4-48. Note: the black line on Figure 4-46 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed as poor and are greatest at high and low flows. This may indicate the presence of a background source that is particularly noticeable during low flows, potentially from non-contact cooling water. The elevated concentrations of TP at high flows suggest the prevalence of nonpoint sources during high flows. The concentrations of TSS were also characterized as poor. The data suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameters of focus, DO was also assessed in detail. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations declined during the summer months, but the lower portions of the ranges declined more than would be expected during the summer. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-100. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and winter data are not available. In other parts of the watershed, chloride is higher in March probably a residual from road salt. As this is not the case here, it is possible that chloride may not be problematic at this site. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, the data suggest that high flows may dilute the chloride concentration (Figure 4-49). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-101 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
4-160
Menomonee River
and TABLE 4-103 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-8 are upstream of MN-9. The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from MN-1 through MN-8, are estimated. TABLE 4-104 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-105 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-106 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-161
Menomonee River @ 127th Street Ext (RI 21)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-46

FIGURE 4-47

127th Street Ext. (RI-21) Reach 848

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-48


TABLE 4-100
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Assessment Point MN-9 Middle Menomonee River Mainstem, Downstream of Butler Ditch Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 2,828 57 489 72 1,571 76 229 51 10.8 11 99 0.101 0.061 69 1.08 1 15.7 6 0.0052 0.0019
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-165
127th Street Ext. (RI-21) Reach 848

Chloride
100
10
High Flows
Moist Conditions
Mid-range Flows
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
1

FIGURE 4-49


TABLE 4-101
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD

1086.81 382.32 48,807 5.19 4.13 265 46.22 58.42 1,778 0.21 0.08 20 15.79 2.58 781 14.77 5.35 1,262 140.00 9.62 2,492 561.29 53.27 8,753 13.25 0.81 168 137.88 84.15 8,791 33,967 1.66 0.34 155 71 19.52 4.98 925 1,656 1.13 0.33 50 101 177.66 49.22 5,965 131,163 224.35 110.19 9,629 62,617 64.90 22.42 2,497 60,632 138.09 6.20 4,149 375 166.26 0.09 124 0 2.84 0.08 40 3,101
FC billion counts 433,969 37 452 3 107 20,045 2,764 26,451 889 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-102 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

39% 48% 50% 0% 1% 0% 2% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 3% 20% 7% 9% 0% 0% 0% 5% 11% 9% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 17% 8% 14% 10% 8% 2% 3% 3% 8% 5% 1% 4% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 0%
4-167
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-103
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.144 0.051 6.460 57.437
0.001 0.001 0.035 0.005
0.006 0.008 0.235 0.060
0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000
0.002 0.000 0.103 0.014
0.002 0.001 0.167 2.653
0.019 0.001 0.330 0.366
0.074 0.007 1.158 3.501
0.002 0.000 0.022 0.118
0.018 0.011 1.164 4.496
0.000 0.000 0.021 0.009
0.003 0.001 0.122 0.219
0.000 0.000 0.007 0.013
0.024 0.007 0.789 17.360
0.030 0.015 1.274 8.288
0.009 0.003 0.330 8.025
0.018 0.001 0.549 0.050
0.022 0.000 0.016 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.005 0.410
TABLE 4-104 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

3892.46 1350.24 174,803 1,152,817 246.79 112.41 17,997 2,058 443.37 305.43 30,808 5,626 33.56 14.82 3,671 449 64.35 10.48 4,141 550
47.59 17.04 4,068 52,044
602.66 2129.81 92.11 38.11 15,705 147.72 36,316 4.14 1,558
559.09 317.45 35,648 96,453
34.88 100.76 8.44 4,376 1,657 22.15 6,113 9,464
12.47 2.31 799 1,418
844.64 238.05 28,358 452,545
389.81 178.27 16,727 92,015
226.64 68.15 8,718 131,025
614.59 24.65 22,624 2,111
1315.78 1.83 7,335 0
9.81 0.28 138 10,722
14,500 103,459 7,533
4-168
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-105
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Point Source Industrial
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

33% 47% 42% 54% 2% 4% 4% 0% 4% 11% 7% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
0% 1% 1% 2%
5% 1% 4% 1%
18% 5% 9% 5%
1% 0% 0% 0%
5% 11% 8% 5%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 8% 7% 21%
3% 6% 4% 4%
2% 2% 2% 6%
5% 1% 5% 0%
11% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-106 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.106 0.037 4.772 31.471 0.007 0.003 0.491 0.056 0.012 0.008 0.841 0.154 0.001 0.000 0.100 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.113 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.111 1.421 0.016 0.001 0.429 0.396 0.058 0.004 0.991 2.824 0.003 0.000 0.043 0.206 0.015 0.009 0.973 2.633 0.001 0.000 0.119 0.045 0.003 0.001 0.167 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.039 0.023 0.006 0.774 12.354
0.011 0.005 0.457 2.512
0.006 0.002 0.238 3.577
0.017 0.001 0.618 0.058
0.036 0.000 0.200 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.004 0.293
4-169
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 1%
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are nine assessed plant communities located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities range from poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessments rating, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 6% reduction for Baseline TP loads, a 35% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 16% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-107. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-108 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-109 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-110 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-8 are upstream of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). TABLE 4-111 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-112 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-113 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 35% reduction in FC loading and the 6% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and moderate during the swimming season within the Middle Menomonee 4-170
Menomonee River
River assessment point area (MN-9). The assessment of TP would remain poor. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good. During the warm weather months, the assessments of the minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-107 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Assessment Point MN-9 Middle Mainstem Menomonee River, Downstream of Butler Ditch Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 1,865 59 329 149 783 78 131 113 10.8 11.0 99 0.098 0.063 68 0.85 0.79 12.9 5.0 0.0047 0.0019
4-171

TABLE 4-108
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Government / Institution
Transportation
Point Source Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Wetland
Commercial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
1,104.22 342.02 48,862 282,163
-----
0.89 0.30 133 2
-----
13.82 2.26 695 94
17.87 5.71 1,444 15,929
110.67 7.27 2,201 1,744
457.29 41.49 8,101 17,344
11.89 0.71 168 706
195.69 107.44 11,986 30,046
0.10 0.02 10 1
3.67 0.91 186 37
-----
190.84 46.78 6,608 90,096
191.54 85.57 7,947 34,273
64.04 18.55 2,457 33,754
130.08 166.26 5.83 3,943 356 0.09 124 0
1.42 0.04 20 1,551
TABLE 4-109 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

42% 51% 51% 56% ----0% 0% 0% 0% ----1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 0% 17% 6% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 16% 13% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----7% 7% 7% 18%
7% 13% 8% 7%
2% 3% 3% 7%
5% 1% 4% 0%
6% 0% 0% 0%
4-172
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
SSOs

TABLE 4-110
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.136 0.045 6.467 36.023 ----0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 ----0.002 0.000 0.092 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.191 2.073 0.015 0.001 0.291 0.231 0.061 0.005 1.072 2.296 0.002 0.000 0.022 0.093 0.026 0.014 1.586 3.977 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.005 ----0.023 0.006 0.875 11.592
0.025 0.011 1.052 4.536
0.008 0.002 0.325 4.345
0.017 0.001 0.522 0.047
0.022 0.000 0.016 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000
TABLE 4-111 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
6.97 0.20 98 7,620
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

3,840.62 1,180.06 169,691 787,722 83.38 29.67 10,190 110 100.60 35.99 14,428 223 9.56 2.60 2,022 21 76.50 12.64 5,213 645
59.88 19.41 4,885 45,896
638.86 43.13 19,889 15,265
1,944.01 135.66 38,499 78,860
99.27 4.90 1,936 8,471
678.84 353.17 42,211 83,330
8.80 2.11 1,388 52
22.45 4.53 1,858 277
2.74 0.57 195 36
980.64 243.49 33,178 369,982
346.64 146.78 14,587 55,415
227.68 60.56 8,823 88,282
638.58 26.16 24,208 2,204
1,315.78 1.83 7,335 0
4-173
SSOs

TABLE 4-112
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

35% 51% 42% 51% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 6% 2% 5% 1% 18% 6% 10% 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 6% 15% 11% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 11% 8% 24%
3% 6% 4% 4%
2% 3% 2% 6%
6% 1% 6% 0%
12% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-113 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.105 0.032 4.632 21.504 0.002 0.001 0.278 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.394 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.142 0.018 0.002 0.001 0.133 1.253 0.017 0.001 0.543 0.417 0.053 0.004 1.051 2.153 0.003 0.000 0.053 0.231 0.019 0.010 1.152 2.275 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.051 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.027 0.007 0.906 10.100
0.009 0.004 0.398 1.513
0.006 0.002 0.241 2.410
0.017 0.001 0.661 0.060
0.036 0.000 0.200 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.003 0.208
4-174
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
Menomonee River
The assessment point area for MN-12 is located downstream of MN-9 and encompasses 1.2 square miles. The mainstem flows southeasterly for just over a mile. It begins in Clarks Woods on the downstream end of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) and flows easterly through the village of Butler, including the Butler Frontier Park. From this point, it changes direction and flows southeasterly in the city of Milwaukee towards Hampton Avenue. The downstream end of the reach is located at the confluence with the Little Menomonee River, which is approximately located at the intersection of STH 100 and Hampton Avenue within the city of Milwaukee. In general, the one-mile reach of the Middle Menomonee River mainstem (MN-12) flows within a natural channel through transportation and manufacturing land uses. This reach does have wide riparian buffers; nearly 75% of the buffers in the assessment point area exceed 75 feet. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12) does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Notable transportation uses include the Union Pacific rail line and yard facilities and two interchanges on USH 45. Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) is predominantly transportation (37%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 24% of the total land use within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) while manufacturing and industrial land uses make up nearly 19% of the total land use within the area. Low-density residential (defined on following table), high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land uses compose the remaining 20%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 39% of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) is impervious. TABLE 4-114 presents the land uses within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12).
4-175
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-114 LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
1 2
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). The municipalities include the cities of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa and the villages of Butler and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 55% of the 1.2 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The village of Butler occupies nearly 42% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the city of Wauwatosa occupy the remaining 2 and 1%, respectively (Figure 4-50). The extent of the civil divisions within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) is presented in TABLE 4115.
4-176
! ! !
MN-12
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Waterbodies
Land Use
Argiculture Low Density Residential High Density Residential
Watersheds Assessment Point Basins Civil Division
Commercial
375 750 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-115 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee City of Wauwatosa Village of Butler Village of Menomonee Falls Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.2 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 55.33% 0.67% 42.17% 1.83% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP and FC. Within the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (38%) and industrial point sources (17%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (63%) and industrial (13%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). See Figure 4-51, Figure 4-52, and Figure 4-53. Note: the black line on Figure 4-51 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Based on detailed analysis, the concentrations of TP were assessed as poor and are greatest at high and low flows. This may indicate the presence of a background source that is particularly noticeable during low flows, potentially from non-contact cooling water. The elevated concentrations of TP at high flows suggest the prevalence of nonpoint sources during high flows within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the 4-178
Menomonee River
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations decline during the summer months, but the lower portions of the ranges decline more than would be expected during the summer. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD. The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-116. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and winter data are not available. March data (which include snow melt and spring runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed those measured in March. It is difficult to assess chloride trends without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir (sediment). This chloride is gradually released and this is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow conditions, the concentration becomes diluted (Figure 4-54). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables; BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-117 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-119 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-11 are upstream of MN-12. The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from MN-1 through MN-11, are estimated. TABLE 4-120 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-121 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-122 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-179
Menomonee River @ Hampton Avenue (RI 22)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-51

FIGURE 4-52

Hampton Avenue (RI-22) Reach 857

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-53


TABLE 4-116
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Assessment Point MN-12 Middle Menomonee River Mainstem, Downstream of Little Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 4,366 50 795 31 2,175 69 348 21 10.7 10.9 99 0.1 0.061 69 1.07 1.01 13.4 5.2 0.0054 0.0021
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-183
Hampton Avenue (RI-22) Reach 857

Chloride
100
10
High Flows
Moist Conditions
Mid-range Flows
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
1

FIGURE 4-54


TABLE 4-117
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

197.85 77.48 8,885 ---------0.77 0.12 34 1.23 0.53 105 8.07 0.56 122 67.09 6.77 855 0.04 0.00 0 80.89 50.28 5,157 20,706 ------------13.17 4.21 442 13,483 36.29 18.91 1,558 11,506 7.55 2.65 291 7,303 12.52 0.59 304 28 90.19 0.09 570 0 -----
100,528 ---5 2,526 148 2,868 2 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-118 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

38% 48% 48% ---------0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 13% 4% 5% 0% 0% 0% 16% 31% 28% ----------3% 3% 2% 8% 7% 12% 9% 7% 1% 2% 2% 5% 2% 0% 2% 0% 17% 0% 3% 0% ---------
63% ---0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 13% --Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-185
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-119
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (D) Grass (B) Grass (C) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.258 0.101 11.596 131.203
-----
-----
-----
0.001 0.000 0.044 0.006
0.002 0.001 0.137 3.296
0.011 0.001 0.159 0.193
0.088 0.009 1.116 3.743
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003
0.106 0.066 6.731 27.024
-----
-----
-----
0.017 0.005 0.577 17.597
0.047 0.025 2.033 15.017
0.010 0.003 0.379 9.531
0.016 0.001 0.397 0.037
0.118 0.000 0.744 0.000
TABLE 4-120 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (D) Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Point Source
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
SSOs
--------10.28 0.29 145 11,238
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

5550.41 1965.84 249,259 352.20 793.20 165.95 482.52 22,894 47,801 2,634 9,331 87.94 36.29 7,091 955 97.20 15.17 6,186 781
87.21 33.10 7,455 185,340
753.93 45.77 19,201 17,412
3168.31 120.10 203.45 54,002 152,513 5.15 1,856 9,071
892.02 512.17 56,877
48.30 143.00 22.51 11.19 5,844 29.33 8,470 3.86 1,255
1169.05 334.92 39,250 993,486
506.21 235.80 21,722
283.57 86.87 10,908
825.54 31.41 28,258 2,639
1671.06 3.10 10,428 0
billion counts 2,603,835
253,788 2,215 12,764 2,248
162,679 226,567
4-186
SSOs

TABLE 4-121
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

33% 47% 42% 56% 2% 4% 4% 0% 5% 11% 8% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 4%
5% 1% 3% 0%
19% 5% 9% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
5% 12% 9% 5%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 8% 7% 21%
3% 6% 4% 3%
2% 2% 2% 5%
5% 1% 5% 0%
10% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-122 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.219
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.108 0.038 4.860 50.769 0.007 0.003 0.446 0.051 0.015 0.009 0.932 0.182 0.002 0.001 0.138 0.019 0.002 0.000 0.121 0.015 0.002 0.001 0.145 3.614 0.015 0.001 0.374 0.340 0.062 0.004 1.053 2.974 0.002 0.000 0.036 0.177 0.017 0.010 1.109 4.948 0.001 0.000 0.114 0.043 0.003 0.001 0.165 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.044 0.023 0.007 0.765 19.371
0.010 0.005 0.424 3.172
0.006 0.002 0.213 4.418
0.016 0.001 0.551 0.051
0.033 0.000 0.203 0.000
4-187
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River area was evaluated at MN-12. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. At MN12, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are two assessed plant communities located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). The quality assessments of these plant communities range from very poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 10% reduction from Baseline TP loads and a 46% reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from the Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) are presented in TABLE 4-123. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-124 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads. TABLE 4-125 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-126 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment points MN-1 through MN-11 are upstream of MN-12. TABLE 4-127 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4128 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-129 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 46% reduction in FC loading and the 10% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures and the assessment of TP would also 4-188
Menomonee River
remain poor. The assessments of TSS and minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain unchanged and very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-123 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator Statistic 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 3,237 52 554 80 1,220 72 205 60 10.7 10.9 99 0.096 0.062 69 0.84 0.79 10.8 4.2 0.0048 0.0020
MN-12 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Middle (annual) Menomonee River Mainstem, Downstream of Little Menomonee River Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total)
4-189

TABLE 4-124
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

182.05 62.00 7,970 54,745 ------------0.76 0.12 34 5 0.96 0.35 76 1,069 6.01 0.38 95 74 49.37 4.62 657 1,428 0.03 0.00 0 1 69.55 38.53 4,251 10,840 ------------12.25 3.39 418 7,166
31.60 14.67 1,300 6,100
7.15 2.17 275 3,957
12.51 0.59 304 28
90.19 0.09 570 0
TABLE 4-125 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

39% 49% 50% 64% ------------0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 11% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 30% 27% 13% ------------3% 3% 3% 8% 7% 12% 8% 7% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 0% 2% 0% 20% 0% 4% 0% -----
4-190
SSOs
SSOs
-----

TABLE 4-126
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.225 0.081 10.402 69.669 ------------0.001 0.000 0.044 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.099 1.374 0.008 0.001 0.124 0.097 0.064 0.006 0.858 1.864 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.091 0.050 5.548 14.148 ------------0.015 0.004 0.546 9.171
0.041 0.019 1.697 7.962
0.009 0.003 0.359 5.058
0.016 0.001 0.397 0.037
0.118 0.000 0.744 0.000
TABLE 4-127 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
----7.45 0.21 105 8,137
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

5,478.68 114.61 1,711.35 240,333 43.77 12,822 136 212.24 84.97 25,030 405 12.73 117.84 3.68 2,440 25 18.55 7,772 929
101.37 33.89 8,219 160,090
796.14 50.43 23,567 18,098
2,853.54 182.13 54,266 118,572
164.99 7.05 2,659 12,098
1,081.76 562.94 66,722 211,917
20.07 4.39 2,917 110
53.62 9.53 4,016 580
6.33 1.08 397 73
1,312.64 329.73 44,040 826,035
478.27 204.87 19,978 106,414
285.37 77.12 10,978 161,645
885.13 34.25 30,763 2,787
1,761.25 3.18 10,998 0
4-191
SSOs

TABLE 4-128
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
35% 51% 42% 53%
1% 1% 2% 0%
1% 3% 4% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
1% 1% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 5%
5% 1% 4% 1%
18% 5% 10% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
7% 17% 12% 6%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 10% 8% 24%
3% 6% 4% 3%
2% 2% 2% 5%
6% 1% 5% 0%
11% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-129 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.159
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.107 0.033 4.686 36.431 0.002 0.001 0.250 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.488 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.152 0.018
0.002 0.001 0.160 3.121
0.016 0.001 0.459 0.353
0.056 0.004 1.058 2.312
0.003 0.000 0.052 0.236
0.021 0.011 1.301 4.132
0.000 0.000 0.057 0.002
0.001 0.000 0.078 0.011
0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001
0.026 0.006 0.859 16.106
0.009 0.004 0.390 2.075
0.006 0.002 0.214 3.152
0.017 0.001 0.600 0.054
0.034 0.000 0.214 0.00
4-192
SSOs
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.9 Little Menomonee Creek (Assessment Point MN-10)
Menomonee River
Little Menomonee Creek is located in the northeastern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The Little Menomonee Creek flows southerly for about three miles to its confluence with the mainstem. The creek begins just west of the intersection of Granville and Highland Roads, within the city of Mequon. It flows easterly along the south side of Highland Road, changes direction and then flows southwesterly towards Trinity Lutheran Grade School at the intersection of Granville and Freistadt Roads. From this point, the creek continues to flow southwesterly and gradually changes direction and flows southeasterly towards the intersection of STH 167 and Granville Road. At this point, the creek enters the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11), see page 208. For the most part, the Little Menomonee Creek flows within a natural channel through agricultural lands. However, the riparian margin is relatively narrow, with the width being less than 25 feet in most reaches. Only 30% of the creek has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The narrow riparian margin can be attributed to farming right up to the edge of the river. The Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the Little Menomonee Creeks assessment point area (MN-10) encompasses 3.0 square miles. The land use within the assessment point area for MN10 is predominantly agriculture (61%) (Figure 4-55). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 22% of the total land use while low-density residential (defined on following table) comprises nearly 11% of the total land use. Transportation along with highdensity residential, institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses composes the remaining 6%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 5% of the MN-10 assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-130 presents the land uses within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10).
4-193
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-130 LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
1 2
4-194
on Road
MN-10
LEGEND
Land Use
500 1,000 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the MN-10 assessment point area. The municipalities include: the city of Mequon and the village of Germantown. Approximately 93% of the 3.0 square mile assessment point area is located within the city of Mequon. The village of Germantown occupies the remaining 7%. The extent of the civil divisions within the MN-10 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-131.
TABLE 4-131 CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Civil Division City of Mequon Village of Germantown Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 2.8 0.2 3.0 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 92.93% 7.07% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Little Menomonee Creek are FC and TSS. Within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline FC loads are commercial (41%) and residential (28%) land uses. The largest contributors of TSS are crops grown on hydrologic group C soils (47%) and commercial land use (21%). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area. See Figure 4-56, Figure 4-57, and Figure 4-58. Note: the black line on Figure 4-56 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total suspended solids data were also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TSS were classified as poor. The data suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TP data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the
4-196
Menomonee River
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations declined during summer months, but also note that DO declined during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff may carry a relatively large organic load and BOD. The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. Unlike a number of other assessment points, the TP concentrations are not strongly correlated with TSS concentrations within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-132. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-133 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-134 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE 4-135 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-197
Menomonee River @ Little Menomonee Creek (RI 861)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-56

FIGURE 4-57

Little Menomonee Creek Reach 861

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-58


TABLE 4-132
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Assessment Point MN-10 Little Menomonee Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 4,970 57 438 91 3,710 73 201 62 9.2 9.2 97 0.061 0.049 89 1.06 0.93 24.6 10.8 0.0031 0.0014
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-201

TABLE 4-133
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
---------
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

74.85 27.79 3,361 24.84 12.61 1,154 123.96 62.76 6,022 5.20 2.05 327 6.81 0.97 424 1.13 0.46 96 12.77 0.65 295 81.14 4.35 1,382 4.10 0.15 44 225 1.82 1.07 116 749 3.44 0.71 377 143 13.39 2.28 747 1,046 1.47 0.23 67 121 26.08 7.79 876 42,411 ----22.91 7.54 881 35,518 25.98 0.83 694 62 ---------
60,969 136 1,313 48 47 3,715 233 3,608 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-134 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

17% 21% 20% 6% 10% 7% 29% 47% 36% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 2% 19% 3% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 5% 28% ----5% 6% 5% 24% 6% 1% 4% 0% ---------
4-202
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-135
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.035 0.013 1.582
0.012 0.006 0.543 0.064
0.058 0.030 2.835 0.618
0.002 0.001 0.154 0.023
0.003 0.000 0.199 0.022
0.001 0.000 0.045 1.749
0.006 0.000 0.139 0.110
0.038 0.002 0.651 1.699
0.002 0.000 0.021 0.106
0.001 0.001 0.055 0.352
0.002 0.000 0.177 0.067
0.006 0.001 0.352 0.492
0.001 0.000 0.031 0.057
0.012 0.004 0.412 19.966
-----
0.011 0.004 0.415 16.721
0.012 0.000 0.327 0.029
-----
4-203
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within the area, the flashiness was characterized as very good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. The Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) does not contain any assesses plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 16% reduction from Baseline FC loads and a 44% reduction in Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) are presented in TABLE 4-136. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-137 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-138 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-139 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 16% reduction in FC loading and the 44% reduction in TSS loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures and the assessment of TSS would also remain poor. The assessments of the minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain unchanged and very good. Similarly, the assessment of TP would also remain unchanged as good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area (MN-10) would also
4-204
Menomonee River
remain unchanged (very good). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-136 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 4,075 59 278 163 2,998 74 110 108 9.2 9.2 98 0.056 0.046 91 0.80 0.72 18.1 9.0 0.0026 0.0012
MN-10 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Little Menomonee (annual) Creek
4-205
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-137
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
---------
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

65.25 21.09 2,805 49,656 11.81 5.33 996 10 56.25 24.68 5,342 91 0.64 0.22 85 1 9.88 1.41 615 68 2.26 0.80 183 6,910 14.51 0.66 344 265 71.77 3.49 1,261 3,194 7.95 0.26 87 439 0.50 0.26 30 193 2.21 0.45 299 11 13.23 2.12 915 128 0.28 0.04 16 3 24.52 6.37 798 36,838
0.00 0.00 0 0
20.24 5.77 751 28,958
36.28 1.16 969 86
-----
TABLE 4-138 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD
Units
pounds tons pounds 19% 28% 18% 39% 3% 7% 6% 0% 17% 33% 34% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 4% 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 4% 1% 2% 0% 21% 5% 8% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 4% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 9% 5% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 8% 5% 23% 11% 2% 6% 0% ---------
FC billion counts Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-206
SSOs
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-139
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.030 0.010 1.320 0.006 0.003 0.469 0.026 0.012 2.515 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.005 0.001 0.290 0.001 0.000 0.086 0.007 0.000 0.162 0.034 0.002 0.593 0.004 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.141 0.006 0.001 0.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.003 0.375
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.009 0.003 0.354
0.017 0.001 0.456
----
billion counts/acre 23.094 0.005 0.043 0.000 0.032 3.244 0.125 1.504 0.207 0.091 0.005 0.060 0.001 17.191 0.000 13.497 0.040 -Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-207
SSOs
-----
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.10 Little Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-11)
Menomonee River
The Little Menomonee River is located in the northeastern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The river generally flows southerly for about 10 miles to its confluence with the Menomonee River mainstem. The Little Menomonee River begins in the city of Mequon, northeast of the intersection of Farmdale and Freistadt Roads. It flows southwesterly through Solar Heights Woods, south of STH 167, and along the west side of the Resurrection Cemetery. South of the cemetery, the Little Menomonee Creek flows into the Little Menomonee River north of Donges Bay Road and east of Granville Road. From the confluence, the river flows southerly within a mile of Triple Woods and Stauss Woods, then south of CTH Q and through North Lake Park before flowing south of Brown Deer Road. The river continues to flow southerly, within mile of Bradley Woods, flows east of Vincent High School, and then flows south of Good Hope Road. The confluence with Noyes Park Creek is located south of Good Hope Road. From the confluence, the river changes direction and flows southwesterly past STH 145, USH 41, Timmerman Airport, and STH 100 where it enters the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-15), see page 257. In the northern reaches, the Little Menomonee River flows through agricultural lands and has a riparian margin width that varies from greater than 75 feet to less than 25 feet. Nearly half of the riparian margin within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area exceeds 75 feet. The Little Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. South of CTH Q, the river flows through more residential and industrial areas, but is associated with a parkway system, which generally allows a greater riparian width. In general, the Little Menomonee River flows through a natural channel. Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11) encompasses 18.8 square miles. The land uses within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (27%) (Figure 4-59). Agriculture land use makes up nearly 26% of the total land use while low-density residential (defined on following table) makes up nearly 17% of the total land use. Freeways, arterial streets, and local roads contribute to transportation that makes up approximately 17% of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial along with high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 13%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 17% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-140 presents the land uses within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11).
4-208

TABLE 4-140
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
1 2
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling units / net residential acre). 2 High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-209
C ii tt y o ff C y o MEQUON MEQUON
Mequon Road Mequon Road
Main St.
Brown Deer Rd.
76th St.
GLENDALE GLENDALE
Green
nd Fo D u c La v. A n to le pp A
MN-11
d. Ba y R
A v.
! !
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Waterbodies
Land Use
Agriculture Low Density Residential High Density Residential
Watersheds Assessment Point Basins Civil Division
Commercial
1,300 2,600 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, and Washington counties are located within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). The municipalities include: the city of Mequon, the city of Milwaukee, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 61% of the 18.8 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Mequon occupies nearly 38% of the area, and the village of Germantown occupies the remaining 1%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-141.
TABLE 4-141 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Civil Division City of Mequon City of Milwaukee Village of Germantown Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 7.2 11.4 0.2 18.8 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 38.27% 60.74% 0.99% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameter of focus in the Little Menomonee River is FC. Within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11), the largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (59%) and residential (22%) land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the areas land uses. These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area. See Figure 4-60, Figure 4-61, and Figure 4-62. Note: the black line on Figure 4-60 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments of DO, TP, and TSS were performed. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations decline during summer months, but also note
4-211
Menomonee River
that DO concentrations decline during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff may carry a relatively large organic load and BOD. The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. The assessment of TP was good and the data indicate that concentrations of phosphorus are greatest at high flows. This suggests a predominance of nonpoint sources of phosphorus within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). Note also that the TP concentrations increase at low flows; this could be an indication that the assessment point area contains background sources of phosphorus, such as non-contact cooling water. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-142. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-143 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-144 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE 4-145 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Little Menomonee Creek (MN-10) assessment point area is upstream of the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). TABLE 4-146 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-147 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-148 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-212
Menomonee River @ Little Menomonee River (RI 871)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-60

FIGURE 4-61

Little Menomonee River Reach 871

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-62


TABLE 4-142
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Assessment Point MN-11 Little Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 7,777 53 700 68 4,477 70 261 48 10.4 10.5 98 0.058 0.043 89 0.58 0.56 13.2 4.6 0.005 0.0017
4-216

TABLE 4-143
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1583.10 587.80 71,094 80.57 40.92 3,743 225.86 114.34 10,971 49.18 19.42 3,093 26.04 3.72 1,620 38.50 15.61 3,291 138.50 7.01 3,201 957.36 51.38 16,304 23.89 0.86 254 331.11 193.64 21,113 135,881 9.97 2.04 1,091 415 28.86 4.91 1,611 2,254 8.57 1.32 390 709 298.32 89.08 10,016 485,048 116.41 57.53 4,995 59,158 34.01 11.18 1,308 52,721 184.97 5.93 4,940 438 355.28 1.27 3,093 0 0.47 0.01 7 517
billion counts 1,289,521 441 2,392 457 179 127,057 2,531 42,578 1,311 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-144 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

35% 49% 44% 2% 3% 2% 5% 9% 7% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 21% 4% 10% 1% 0% 0% 7% 16% 13% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 6% 22% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 0% 3% 0% 8% 0% 2% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 0%
4-217
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-145
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.135 0.050 6.043 109.603
0.007 0.003 0.318 0.037
0.019 0.010 0.933 0.203
0.004 0.002 0.263 0.039
0.002 0.000 0.138 0.015
0.003 0.001 0.280 10.799
0.012 0.001 0.272 0.215
0.081 0.004 1.386 3.619
0.002 0.000 0.022 0.111
0.028 0.016 1.794 11.549
0.001 0.000 0.093 0.035
0.002 0.000 0.137 0.192
0.001 0.000 0.033 0.060
0.025 0.008 0.851 41.227
0.010 0.005 0.425 5.028
0.003 0.001 0.111 4.481
0.016 0.001 0.420 0.037
0.030 0.000 0.263 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.044
TABLE 4-146 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0.47 0.01 7 517
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1657.95 615.60 74,455
1,350,490
105.41 53.54 4,897 576
349.83 177.10 16,993 3,705
54.38 21.47 3,420 506
32.85 4.69 2,044 226
39.63 16.07 3,387 130,771
151.27 7.66 3,496 2,765
1038.50 55.73 17,686 46,186
27.99 1.00 298 1,536
332.93 194.71 21,229

136,629
13.42 2.75 1,468 558
42.24 7.18 2,358 3,300
10.04 1.55 456 830
324.41 96.87 10,891 527,459
116.41 57.53 4,995 59,158
56.93 18.72 2,190 88,239
210.96 6.76 5,634 499
355.28 1.27 3,093 0
4-218
SSOs

TABLE 4-147
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

34% 46% 42% 57% 2% 4% 3% 0% 7% 13% 9% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 2% 6%
3% 1% 2% 0%
21% 4% 10% 2%
1% 0% 0% 0%
7% 15% 12% 6%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 7% 6% 22%
2% 4% 3% 3%
1% 1% 1% 4%
4% 1% 3% 0%
7% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-148 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units pounds/acre Tons/acre Pounds/acre

0.119 0.044 5.360 0.008 0.004 0.353 0.042 0.025 0.013 1.223 0.267 0.004 0.002 0.246 0.036 0.002 0.000 0.147 0.016 0.003 0.001 0.244 9.415 0.011 0.001 0.252 0.199 0.075 0.004 1.273 3.325 0.002 0.000 0.021 0.111 0.024 0.014 1.528 9.837 0.001 0.000 0.106 0.040 0.003 0.001 0.170 0.238 0.001 0.000 0.033 0.060 0.023 0.007 0.784 37.975
0.008 0.004 0.360 4.259
0.004 0.001 0.158 6.353
0.015 0.000 0.406 0.036
0.026 0.000 0.223 0.000
4-219
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are 13 assessed plant communities located within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities range from very poor to good; overall, the communities tend to be higher quality. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 21% reduction from Baseline FC loads that are derived from the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-149. This also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-150 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-151 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-152 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-153 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-154 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-155 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 21% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures. In addition to the parameter of focus, the assessment of DO (annual) and DO (warm weather months) would remain unchanged and very good. The assessment of TSS would also remain as very good and the assessment of TP would remain 4-220
Menomonee River
unchanged as good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN11) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-149 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 6,053 54 520 96 2,704 71 171 69 10.4 10.6 98 0.053 0.041 91 0.47 0.46 9.7 3.3 0.0040 0.0014
MN-11 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Little Menomonee (annual) River
4-221
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-150
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,390.76 448.20 59,867 976,339 19.41 8.76 1,636 17 55.39 24.30 5,260 90 2.52 0.86 333 4 30.70 4.38 1,910 211 38.27 13.33 3,076 106,215 136.76 6.25 3,239 2,494 788.39 38.35 13,849 35,090 57.74 1.88 635 3,188 332.87 170.99 20,229 117,554 9.06 1.83 1,230 47 17.95 2.88 1,242 174 3.32 0.47 187 34 295.24 76.48 9,646 412,048
100.03 43.42 4,091
30.31 8.61 1,129
197.77 6.34 5,282 468
355.28 1.27 3,093 0
0.47 0.01 7 517
44,898 40,449
TABLE 4-151 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

36% 52% 44% 56% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 6% 4% 1% 2% 0% 20% 4% 10% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 9% 20% 15% 7% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 9% 7% 24% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 5% 1% 4% 0% 9% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4-222
SSOs
SSOs
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-152
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.115 0.038 5.088 0.002 0.001 0.139 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.447 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.162 0.018 0.003 0.001 0.261 8.959 0.012 0.001 0.275 0.212 0.067 0.003 1.177 2.982 0.005 0.000 0.054 0.271 0.028 0.015 1.719 9.992 0.001 0.000 0.105 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.106 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.024 0.007 0.820 34.602
0.009 0.004 0.348 3.816
0.002 0.001 0.096 3.389
0.017 0.001 0.449 0.040
0.030 0.000 0.263 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
TABLE 4-153 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,456.01 469.29 62,672 1,025,995 31.23 14.10 2,632 27 111.64 48.98 10,601 181 3.17 1.07 418 4 40.59 5.79 2,525 279
40.53 14.13 3,258 113,124
151.26 6.91 3,583 2,759
860.16 41.85 15,109 38,284
65.69 2.14 722 3,627
333.37 171.24 20,260 117,747
11.27 31.17 2.28 5.00 1,530 2,158 58 302
3.60 0.51 203 37
319.76 82.85 10,444 448,886
100.03 43.42 4,091 44,898
50.54 14.39 1,880 69,407
234.04 7.50 6,251 554
355.28 1.27 3,093 0
0.47 0.01 7 517
4-223
SSOs
SSOs
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-154
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
35% 50% 41% 55%
1% 2% 2% 0%
3% 5% 7% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
1% 1% 2% 0%
1% 2% 2% 6%
4% 1% 2% 0%
20% 4% 10% 2%
2% 0% 0% 0%
8% 18% 13% 6%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 9% 7% 24%
2% 5% 3% 2%
1% 2% 1% 4%
6% 1% 4% 0%
8% 0% 2% 0%
TABLE 4-155 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.105 0.034 4.512 73.868 0.002 0.001 0.189 0.002 0.008 0.004 0.763 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.182 0.020
0.003 0.001 0.235 8.145
0.011 0.000 0.258 0.199
0.062 0.003 1.088 2.756
0.005 0.000 0.052 0.261
0.024 0.012 1.459 8.477
0.001 0.000 0.110 0.004
0.002 0.000 0.155 0.022
0.000 0.000 0.015 0.003
0.023 0.006 0.752 32.318
0.007 0.003 0.295 3.232
0.004 0.001 0.135 4.997
0.017 0.001 0.450 0.040
0.026 0.000 0.223 0.000
4-224
SSOs
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.11 Underwood Creek Area (Assessment Points MN-13 and MN-14)
Menomonee River
Underwood Creek is located in the southern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This area is represented by assessment point areas MN-13 and MN-14. The Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) is located in the upstream reaches of the Underwood Creek area and includes the Dousman Ditch tributary area. The Dousman Ditch tributary passes approximately 1- miles from the Brookfield Swamp. Underwood Creek begins in Wirth Park in the city of Brookfield and flows northeast across Pilgrim Road, past Dixon Elementary School and flows north of the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line. From this point, the creek changes direction and flows easterly towards Zion Woods and then flows southeasterly into the village of Elm Grove. At this point, the creek flows into the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The Underwood Creek assessment point area contains four known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Throughout the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN13), the creek flows within a natural channel, through predominantly low density residential land uses. The width of the riparian corridor varies. It is relatively narrow along the Dousman Ditch and in the vicinity of Wirth Park, but widens to 75 feet or greater along the reach just north of the Village of Elm Grove. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the creek, the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN13) encompasses 7.4 square miles. The land use within the area is predominantly (43%) lowdensity residential (defined on following table) (Figure 4-63). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 24% of the total land use while transportation land uses make up nearly 20% of the total land use within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). Agricultural land uses, along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 13%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 21% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-156 presents the land uses within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13).
4-225

TABLE 4-156
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)

1 2
4-226
Capitol Dr.
MN-13
Bluemound Rd.
Greenfield Av.
LEGEND
Land Use
700 1,400 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the town of Brookfield, and the village of Elm Grove. Approximately 88% of the 7.4 square mile area is located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Elm Grove and the town of Brookfield occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) is presented in TABLE 4-157.
TABLE 4-157 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Civil Division City of Brookfield Town of Brookfield Village of Elm Grove Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 6.5 0.2 0.7 7.4 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 88.39% 2.37% 9.24% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Underwood Creek are TP, FC and TSS. Within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (36%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (32%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (59%) and residential (26%) land uses. Commercial (71%) and residential (13%) land uses are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the area. These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. While FC tends to decline during the summer swimming season, the FC concentrations exceed regulatory standards on some days. For example, during periods with the highest flows, FC counts exceed the regulatory standard all of the time. This suggests that nonpoint sources are responsible for exceedances within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). See Figure 4-64, Figure 4-65, and Figure 4-66. Note: the black line on Figure 4-64 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
4-228
Menomonee River
Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed as moderate and TSS concentrations were assessed as poor. Concentrations of TP tend to increase during spring and summer, suggesting a relationship with annual snowmelt and nonpoint inputs of fertilizers. Increased flows tend to be coincident with the highest concentrations of TP and suggest that nonpoint sources are responsible for elevated concentrations of TP within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The concentrations of TSS tend to increase with increasing flows. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). Within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13), the data indicate that DO concentrations declined more than expected during the summer months. This decline could be due to a combination of decreased water agitation and higher water temperatures. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-158. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-159 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-160 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-161 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-229
Menomonee River @ Underwood Creek (RI 890)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-64

FIGURE 4-65

Underwood Creek Reach 890

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-66


TABLE 4-158
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Assessment Point MN-13 Underwood Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 9,075 61 789 44 4,377 77 404 17 10.1 9.8 96 0.069 0.050 83 0.68 0.61 17.2 7.6 0.0048 0.0013
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper
4-233

TABLE 4-159
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

806.12 323.10 36,202 0.01 0.00 0 2.53 1.27 133 34.40 13.44 2,446 6.19 0.81 369 24.54 10.89 2,097 196.41 7.81 3,688 725.67 25.10 9,258 105.43 2.55 962 6,066 7.82 4.80 499 3,203 ----0.05 0.01 3 4 1.65 0.25 72 147 175.13 57.38 5,880 287,543 ----19.25 6.92 741 29,790 153.85 3.86 4,051 548 ----1.89 0.05 27 2,068
TABLE 4-160 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

36% 71% 54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 4% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 9% 2% 6% 32% 5% 14% 5% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% ---0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 13% 9% 26% ----1% 2% 1% 3% 7% 1% 6% 0% --------0% 0% 0% 0%
FC 59% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3% 1% 0% -0% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-234
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-161
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (D) Grass (B) Grass (C) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
Units Pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre
0.173 0.069 7.780
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.001 0.000 0.028 0.007
0.007 0.003 0.526 0.076
0.001 0.000 0.079 0.021
0.005 0.002 0.451 17.371
0.042 0.002 0.792 0.898
0.156 0.005 1.989 7.303
0.023 0.001 0.207 1.304
0.002 0.001 0.107 0.688
-----
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001
0.000 0.000 0.016 0.032
0.038 0.012 1.264 61.792
-----
0.004 0.001 0.159 6.402
0.033 0.001 0.871 0.118
-----
0.000 0.000 0.006 0.444
4-235
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are seven assessed plant communities located within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The quality assessments of these plant communities range from very poor to fairly good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 15% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 23% reduction from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for this assessment point are presented in TABLE 4162. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-163 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-164 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-165 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and moderate for the swimming season measure. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good and TP from moderate to good. The minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not 4-236
Menomonee River
match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) would remain as moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-162 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 4,845 64 422 119 2,210 80 212 66 10.1 9.8 96 0.061 0.044 86 0.59 0.53 12.8 5.6 0.0038 0.0010
MN-13 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Underwood Creek (annual)
4-237
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-163 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

724.26 255.90 30,835 359,924 ----0.32 0.16 28 1 ----5.22 0.68 310 81 21.78 8.54 1,692 42,034 151.92 5.69 2,961 2,217 562.64 18.47 7,525 18,127 109.85 2.51 1,047 4,360 4.80 2.56 290 1,233 ------------160.37 47.48 5,214 156,855
-----
16.00 5.17 590 14,553
153.11 3.84 4,032 545
-----
1.89 0.05 27 2,068
TABLE 4-164 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

38% 73% 57% 60% ----0% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 2% 3% 7%
8% 2% 5% 0%
29% 5% 14% 3%
6% 1% 2% 1%
0% 1% 1% 0%
-----
-----
-----
8% 14% 10% 26%
-----
1% 1% 1% 2%
8% 1% 7% 0%
-----
4-238
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
SSOs

TABLE 4-165
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.149 0.055 6.626 ---0.000 0.000 0.006 ---0.001 0.000 0.067 0.004 0.002 0.364 0.033 0.001 0.636 0.121 0.004 1.617 0.024 0.001 0.225 0.001 0.001 0.062 ---------0.032 0.010 1.121
----
0.003 0.001 0.127
0.033 0.001 0.866
----
0.000 0.000 0.006
73.812 -0.000 -0.017 8.821 0.476 3.895 0.937 0.265 ---32.529 -2.996 0.117 --0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-239
SSOs
Menomonee River
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is located downstream of the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) includes the South Branch Underwood Creek and the lower reaches of Underwood Creek. Within this area, the creek begins at the northern boundary of the village of Elm Grove. The creek flows southeast towards the Elm Grove Village Hall. Southeast of the Village Hall, the creek crosses to the south side of the CP rail line and enters an enclosed conduit to pass beneath the shopping center located along Watertown Plank Road. The creek emerges from the south side of the shopping center, crosses to the north side of the CP rail line and begins to flow east towards 124th Street and its confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek, which is predominantly a concrete-lined channel. The creek passes less than mile from Bishops Woods and Elm Grove Pond. Immediately downstream of the confluence, the creek flows into Milwaukee County on the north side of Blue Mound Road. From this point, the creek flows within a concrete-lined channel through Underwood Creek Parkway in a northeasterly direction, past STH 100 and USH 45 and along the north side of the Milwaukee County Grounds and Wil-O-Way Woods in the city of Wauwatosa. The creek flows past the Hansen Park Golf Course about 200 feet upstream of its confluence with the Menomonee River. Within this area, the creek flows through low density residential to the west and to the south. East of the county line, the creek flows within a parkway system and adjacent to the County Grounds and institutions. The riparian margin varies from greater than 75 feet wide to less than 25 feet wide. The Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains six known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. There are several noted conditions of streambank erosion located approximately in the Elm Grove Village Grounds and along Bluemound Road upstream of the confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (34%). Transportation land use makes up nearly 32% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 17% of the total land use within the area (Figure 4-67). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 17%. Overall, MN-14s assessment point area contains a number of notable features including Mayfair and Brookfield Square shopping malls, the Milwaukee County Zoo, numerous interchanges associated with I-94 and USH 45, and a large regional floodwater management project located at the Milwaukee County Grounds (currently under construction). Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 28% of the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is impervious. TABLE 4-166 presents the land uses within the area.
4-240

TABLE 4-166
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)

1 2
4-241
!
MN-14
!
LEGEND
Land Use
Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utilites Manufacturing and Industrial
700 1,400 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of six municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The municipalities include: the cities of Brookfield, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Elm Grove. Nearly 32% of the 12.5 square mile modeling is located within the city of Wauwatosa. The city of West Allis and the village of Elm Grove occupy nearly 22 and 21% of the area, respectively. The cities of Brookfield, New Berlin and Milwaukee, together, occupy the remaining 25%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is presented in TABLE 4-167.
TABLE 4-167 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Civil Division City of Brookfield City of Milwaukee City of New Berlin City of Wauwatosa City of West Allis Village of Elm Grove Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 2.1 0.4 0.7 4.0 2.7 2.6 12.5 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 17.02% 3.17% 5.37% 31.68% 21.92% 20.84% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Underwood Creek are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (38%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (32%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (58%) and residential (22%) land uses. Commercial (62%) and transportation (12%) land uses are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The data indicate that FC concentrations tend to decrease during the summer months and that
4-243
Menomonee River
nonpoint sources are the primary contributors of FC in the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). See Figure 4-68, Figure 4-69, and Figure 4-70. Note: the black line on Figure 468 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed as moderate and are greatest in March and are likely related to runoff from snowmelt. Concentrations decline during the summer and early fall and could be related to plant uptake during the growing season. The data also suggest that TP concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources and that TP could be associated with suspended solids. Total suspended solids were characterized as poor within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The increase in concentrations of TSS with increasing flow suggests that nonpoint sources contribute to elevated TSS. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries sediment load, from stream bank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains concrete-lined reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). While it is natural for DO concentrations to decline during the summer months, the data indicate that DO concentrations sporadically decline during these months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-168. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. TABLE 4-169 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-170 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-171 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Underwood Creek assessment point are (MN-13) is upstream of Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). TABLE 4-172 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-173 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-174 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-244
Menomonee River @ Underwood Creek (RI 905)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-68

FIGURE 4-69

Underwood Creek Reach 905

Fecal Coliform
Regulatory Standard- Special Variance (2,000 cfu/100 mL)
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-70


TABLE 4-168
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Assessment Point MN-14 Underwood Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 8,133 71 691 247 2,964 86 351 147 11.0 11.1 100 0.066 0.043 84 0.67 0.61 16.8 7.9 0.0048 0.0013
Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Dissolved Oxygen
Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper a
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-248

TABLE 4-169
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1675.76 671.65 75,255 ---------17.05 2.22 1,015 42.74 18.97 3,653 373.13 14.84 7,006 1423.77 49.25 18,164 34.54 0.83 315 109.60 67.34 6,988 44,896 0.20 0.04 24 11 0.35 0.06 17 30 ----322.47 105.65 10,827 529,444 263.92 133.55 11,328 133,902 41.93 15.07 1,613 64,873 51.77 1.30 1,363 184 28.61 0.05 196 0 13.06 0.37 184 14,266
1,362,536 ---264 140,791 7,942 66,675 1,987 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-170 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

38% 62% 55% ---------0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 8% 1% 5% 32% 5% 13% 1% 0% 0% 2% 6% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----7% 10% 8% 22% 6% 12% 8% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 1%
FC 58% ---0% 6% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-249
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-171
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.212 0.085 9.543 172.779
-----
-----
-----
0.002 0.000 0.129 0.034
0.005 0.002 0.463 17.853
0.047 0.002 0.888 1.007
0.181 0.006 2.303 8.455
0.004 0.000 0.040 0.252
0.014 0.009 0.886 5.693
0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001
0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004
-----
0.041 0.013 1.373 67.137
0.033 0.017 1.437 16.980
0.005 0.002 0.205 8.226
0.007 0.000 0.173 0.023
0.004 0.000 0.025 0.000
0.002 0.000 0.023 1.809
TABLE 4-172 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

2481.88 994.75 111,457 0.01 0.00 0 0 2.53 1.27 133 31 34.40 13.44 2,446 351 23.25 3.03 1,383 360
67.27 29.85 5,750 221,624
569.54 22.66 10,694 12,122
2149.44 74.35 27,421 100,658
139.97 3.38 1,278 8,053
117.42 72.15 7,487 48,099
0.20 0.04 24 11
0.40 0.07 20 35
1.65 0.25 72 147
497.60 163.03 16,707 816,987
263.92 133.55 11,328 133,902
61.18 21.99 2,354 94,663
205.61 5.16 5,414 732
28.61 0.05 196 0
14.95 0.43 211 16,334
4-250
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-173
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

37% 65% 55% 58% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 2% 3% 6%
9% 1% 5% 0%
32% 5% 13% 3%
2% 0% 1% 0%
2% 5% 4% 1%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 11% 8% 24%
4% 9% 6% 4%
1% 1% 1% 3%
3% 0% 3% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
TABLE 4-174 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.001 0.000 0.017 1.303
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.198 0.079 8.889 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.195 0.028 0.002 0.000 0.110 0.029 0.005 0.002 0.459 17.674 0.045 0.002 0.853 0.967 0.171 0.006 2.187 8.027 0.011 0.000 0.102 0.642 0.009 0.006 0.597 3.836 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.040 0.013 1.332 65.154
0.021 0.011 0.903 10.679
0.005 0.002 0.188 7.549
0.016 0.000 0.432 0.058
0.002 0.000 0.016 0.000
4-251
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as moderate. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences moderately normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow moderately supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are nine assessed plant communities located within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The quality assessments of these plant communities range from very poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 16% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 48% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 24% reduction from Baseline TSS loads within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) are presented TABLE 4-175. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-176 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-177 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-178 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-179 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-180 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-181 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 48% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual and remain moderate for the swimming season measure. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading 4-252
Menomonee River
would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good and TP from moderate to good. The minimum DO concentrations would improve from good to very good and the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) would remain as moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-175 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator Year 2020 Condition 4,250 74 369 282 1,332 89 180 153 11.1 11.2 100 0.057 0.039 87 0.57 0.52 12.7 5.8 0.0037 0.0010
MN-14 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Underwood Creek (annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper a
4-253

TABLE 4-176
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,502.42 514.48 64,137 710,290 ------------14.90 1.94 887 231 38.97 14.40 2,999 68,345 292.54 10.96 5,702 4,269 1,078.07 35.39 14,419 34,734 27.12 0.62 259 1,077 76.79 41.06 4,644 18,277 0.16 0.03 24 1 0.04 0.01 3 0 ----303.21 85.25 9,972 278,753
225.88 99.48 9,195 66,805
39.74 12.18 1,476 35,294
44.08 1.11 1,161 157
28.61 0.05 196 0
10.99 0.31 155 12,006
TABLE 4-177 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

41% 63% 56% 58% ------------0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 6% 8% 1% 5% 0% 29% 4% 13% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----8% 10% 9% 23% 6% 12% 8% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 1%
4-254
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-178
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.180 0.065 8.133 85.361 ------------0.002 0.000 0.112 0.029 0.004 0.002 0.380 8.429 0.037 0.001 0.723 0.541 0.137 0.004 1.828 4.404 0.003 0.000 0.033 0.137 0.010 0.005 0.589 2.318 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 ----0.035 0.011 1.265 33.957
0.029 0.013 1.166 8.471
0.005 0.002 0.187 4.295
0.006 0.000 0.147 0.020
0.004 0.000 0.025 0.000
0.001 0.000 0.020 0.000
TABLE 4-179 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

2,226.68 770.39 94,971 1,070,213 ----0.32 0.16 28 1 ----20.12 2.62 1,197 312
60.74 22.94 4,691 110,379
444.46 16.65 8,663 6,486
1,640.71 53.86 21,944 52,861
136.98 3.14 1,306 5,436
81.59 43.63 4,934 19,510
0.16 0.03 24 1
0.04 0.01 3 0
-----
463.58 132.73 15,187 435,608
225.88 99.48 9,195 66,805
55.74 17.35 2,066 49,847
197.20 4.95 5,193 702
28.61 0.05 196 0
12.88 0.37 181 14,074
4-255
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-180
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

40% 66% 56% 58% ----0% 0% 0% 0% ----0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 2% 3% 6%
8% 1% 5% 0%
29% 5% 13% 3%
2% 0% 1% 0%
1% 4% 3% 1%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
-----
8% 11% 9% 24%
4% 9% 5% 4%
1% 1% 1% 3%
4% 0% 3% 0%
1% 0% 0% 0%
TABLE 4-181 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.178 0.061 7.574 s85.348 ----0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 ----0.002 0.000 0.095 0.025 0.005 0.002 0.374 8.803 0.035 0.001 0.691 0.517 0.131 0.004 1.750 4.216 0.011 0.000 0.104 0.434 0.007 0.003 0.393 1.556 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ----0.037 0.011 1.211 34.739
0.018 0.008 0.733 5.328
0.004 0.001 0.165 3.975
0.016 0.000 0.414 0.056
0.002 0.000 0.016 0.000
0.001 0.000 0.014 1.122
4-256
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 1%
Menomonee River
4.5.12 Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-15 and MN-17) This segment of the mainstem is located in the lower eastern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. The reach within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) flows southeasterly from the mainstems confluence with the Little Menomonee River for about three miles to a point just downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek. It flows southerly under Hampton Avenue past the Harley-Davidson Woods, through the Menomonee River Swamp-South, and into Currie Park which is located south of Capitol Drive before changing direction and flowing southeasterly. The confluence with Grantosa Creek occurs in Currie Park immediately west of Mayfair Road. Grantosa Creek flows through enclosed conduit for slightly more than mile of its length. Downstream of the confluence with Grantosa Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem passes Mount Mary College and Blue Mound Country Club before reaching the confluence with Underwood Creek. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains one known dam, drop structure or other obstruction. The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) encompasses 9.0 square miles. The mainstem flows through the Menomonee River Parkway, which allows for a greater riparian width. In general, the width exceeds 75 feet along half of the river within this assessment point area. Portions of both the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN15) and (MN-17) are located in the city of Wauwatosa. MN-15 The land use within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) is predominantly transportation (34%). High-density residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 21% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 15% of the total land use in the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) (Figure 4-71). Low-density residential along with institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 30%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 32% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-182 presents the land uses within the area.
4-257

TABLE 4-182
Menomonee River
LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
1 2
4-258
! !
76th St.
76th St.
u c La A v.
nd Fo D A n to le pp v. A
!
M II L W A U K E E M LWAUKE
MN-15
! ! !
Bluemound Rd.
LEGEND
Land Use
850 1,700 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). The municipalities include: the cities of Brookfield, Milwaukee, and Wauwatosa as well as the village of Butler. Nearly 51% of the 9.0 square mile area is located within the city of Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee occupies 37% of the area. The city of Brookfield and the village of Butler, together, occupy the remaining 12%. The extent of the civil divisions within the MN-15 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-183.
TABLE 4-183 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
Civil Division City of Brookfield City of Milwaukee City of Wauwatosa Village of Butler Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.9 3.4 4.5 0.2 9.0 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 9.76% 37.40% 50.69% 2.15% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are commercial land use (40%) and grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (37%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (56%) and residential (24%) land uses. Commercial (58%) and industrial (16%) land uses are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% to 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the concentrations of FC were assessed as poor for both FC (annual measure) and FC (swimming season). During periods with the highest flows, FC counts typically exceed the regulatory standard. During moist conditions, FC counts still exceed the standard 75% of the time. As FC concentrations increase with increased flows, nonpoint sources are attributed to elevated FC concentrations within the 4-260
Menomonee River
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). See Figure 4-72, Figure 473, and Figure 4-74. Note: the black line on Figure 4-72 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Detailed analysis of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP and TSS were both assessed as moderate; the data suggest that both of these parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO concentrations. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-184. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-185 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-186 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-187 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point areas associated with MN-1 through MN-14 are all located upstream of the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). TABLE 4-188 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-189 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-190 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-261
Menomonee River @ Mainstem (RI 883)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-72

FIGURE 4-73

Menomonee Main Stem Reach 883

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-74


TABLE 4-184
Menomonee River
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment Point MN-15 Lower Mainstem Menomonee River Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<400 cells per 100 ml) Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<200 cells per 100 ml) Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total) Mean (cells per 100 ml) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 6,137 47 1,063 12 3,064 67 476 6 11.0 11.1 100 0.063 0.043 84 0.55 0.52 15.6 5.6 0.0057 0.0023
4-265

TABLE 4-185
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1327.84 529.24 59,631 ---------6.90 1.07 383 27.62 12.25 2,361 45.34 2.66 808 1226.17 77.12 15,641 3.92 0.19 36 230.06 141.97 14,668 81,018 ------------268.78 87.84 9,024 423,987 69.23 35.55 2,972 28,515 48.92 17.53 1,882 72,315 34.34 1.47 877 75 21.96 0.51 1,177 0 6.03 0.17 85 6,586
981,176 ---46 90,196 929 56,978 224 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-186 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

40% 58% 54% ---------0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 37% 8% 14% 0% 0% 0% 7% 16% 13% ----------8% 10% 8% 24% 2% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 0%
FC 56% ---0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 5% --Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-266
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-187
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (C) Crop (B) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.231 0.092 10.389 170.945
-----
-----
-----
0.001 0.000 0.067 0.008
0.005 0.002 0.411 15.714
0.008 0.000 0.141 0.162
0.214 0.013 2.725 9.927
0.001 0.000 0.006 0.039
0.040 0.025 2.556 14.115
-----
-----
-----
0.047 0.015 1.572 73.869
0.012 0.006 0.518 4.968
0.009 0.003 0.328 12.599
0.006 0.000 0.153 0.013
0.004 0.000 0.205 0.000
0.001 0.000 0.015 1.148
TABLE 4-188 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

9557.97 3567.31 429,232 5,602,995 352.21 795.73 122.34 128.11 165.95 483.80 22,895 47,933 2,634 9,362 49.73 9,537 1,307 19.39 7,986 1,187
183.33 75.74 15,671 497,161
1376.88 6611.02 264.04 1320.39 48.50 143.40 24.16 71.64 30,825 30,464 361.69 97,919 8.73 3,170 776.56 84,190 11.23 29.39 4.11 5,868 8,490 1,328
1948.61 589.99 65,423
875.65 423.81 37,580
401.22 129.04 15,434
1078.02 38.63 34,854 3,446
1811.82 3.74 12,370 0
31.26 0.90 440 34,159
310,150 17,349 382,906 2,227 12,798 2,396 2,234,461 325,097 393,544
4-267
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-189
Menomonee River
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
35% 52% 46% 57%
1% 2% 2% 0%
3% 7% 5% 0%
0% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 2% 5%
5% 1% 3% 0%
24% 5% 11% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
5% 11% 9% 4%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 9% 7% 23%
3% 6% 4% 3%
1% 2% 2% 4%
4% 1% 4% 0%
7% 0% 1% 0%
TABLE 4-190 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.137 0.051 6.170 80.542 0.005 0.002 0.329 0.038 0.011 0.007 0.689 0.135 0.002 0.001 0.137 0.019 0.002 0.000 0.115 0.017 0.003 0.001 0.225 7.147 0.020 0.001 0.443 0.438 0.095 0.005 1.408 4.458 0.004 0.000 0.046 0.249 0.019 0.011 1.210 5.504 0.001 0.000 0.084 0.032 0.002 0.000 0.122 0.184 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.034 0.028 0.008 0.940 32.120
0.013 0.006 0.540 4.673
0.006 0.002 0.222 5.657
0.015 0.001 0.501 0.050
0.026 0.000 0.178 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.006 0.491
4-268
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The flashiness was characterized as good in this area. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are four assessed plant communities located in the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area. The quality assessments of these plant communities range from poor to fairly good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 46% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 23% reduction from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-191. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-192 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-193 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-194 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point areas associated with MN-1 through MN14 are all located upstream of the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). TABLE 4-195 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4196 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-197 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 46% reduction in FC loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and 4-269
Menomonee River
swimming season measures. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from moderate to very good and TP from moderate to good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) would remain as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-191 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment Point MN-15 Menomonee Mainstem Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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) 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) Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>5 mg/l) Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 3,820 50 677 53 1,538 70 263 36 10.9 11.0 100 0.059 0.042 87 0.47 0.44 12.5 4.6 0.0049 0.0022
4-270

TABLE 4-192
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,116.20 396.25 48,074 526,215 ------------6.51 1.13 364 87 24.65 9.65 2,001 50,368 35.10 2.18 660 501 978.00 63.55 13,175 31,766 3.11 0.16 30 125 209.42 115.72 12,806 46,005 ------------228.00 66.23 7,377 226,604
60.70 27.88 2,499 15,908
44.02 14.02 1,628 40,928
32.95 1.45 843 101
21.96 0.51 1,177 0
6.03 0.17 85 6,586
TABLE 4-193 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

40% 57% 53% 56% ------------0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 35% 9% 15% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 17% 14% 5% ------------8% 9% 8% 24% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 1%
4-271
SSOs
SSOs
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-194 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads TP TSS BOD

0.193 0.069 8.376 ---------0.001 0.000 0.063 0.004 0.002 0.349 0.006 0.000 0.115 0.170 0.011 2.295 0.001 0.000 0.005 0.036 0.020 2.231 ---------0.039 0.012 1.285
0.011 0.005 0.435
0.008 0.002 0.284
0.006 0.000 0.147
0.004 0.000 0.205
0.001 0.000 0.015
FC billion counts/acre 91.097 ---0.015 8.751 0.087 5.534 0.022 8.015 ---39.299 2.772 7.097 0.018 0.000 -0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-195 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

8,821.56 2,877.99 383,379 114.61 212.56 43.77 136 85.12 405 12,822 25,057 3.68 2,440 25 22.31 9,334
12.73 144.47 186.76 66.48 14,912
1,275.70 5,472.25 305.07 1,372.77 20.22 53.66 6.33 69.26 32,890 25,086 299.53 89,386 10.34 3,994 722.29 84,462 4.42 112 9.54 580 1.08 73 2,941 4,018 397
2,004.23 528.69 66,603
764.85 332.23 31,672
385.13 108.49 14,672
1,115.27 1,811.82 40.65 36,798 3,590 3.74 12,370 0
26.35 0.75 371 28,797
1,328 320,837
203,199 17,659 277,431
1,488,246 189,127 252,420
4-272
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-196
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

37% 55% 46% 55% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 2% 5%
5% 1% 4% 0%
23% 6% 11% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
6% 14% 10% 4%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 10% 8% 24%
3% 6% 4% 3%
2% 2% 2% 4%
5% 1% 4% 0%
8% 0% 1% 0%
TABLE 4-197 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.127 0.041 5.511 49.807 0.002 0.001 0.184 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.360 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.134 0.019
0.003 0.001 0.214 4.612
0.018 0.001 0.473 0.361
0.079 0.004 1.285 2.921
0.004 0.000 0.057 0.254
0.020 0.010 1.214 3.988
0.000 0.000 0.042 0.002
0.001 0.000 0.058 0.008
0.000 0.000 0.006 0.001
0.029 0.008 0.957 21.393
0.011 0.005 0.455 2.719
0.006 0.002 0.211 3.628
0.016 0.001 0.529 0.052
0.026 0.000 0.178 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.005 0.414
4-273
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 0%
Menomonee River
The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is located immediately downstream of the confluence of Underwood Creek and the mainstem. The river flows southeasterly past Hoyt Park and the Milwaukee County Grounds. It flows past the Harmonee Avenue Bridge, a pedestrian bridge, and a CP Rail bridge within the city of Wauwautosa. Within Hart Park, the river continues to flow southeasterly to the confluence with Honey Creek. The riparian margin is generally greater than 75 feet wide due to the Menomonee River Parkway and other park lands through which the river flows. The riparian width exceeds 75 feet along over 65% of the river within this assessment point area. The Lower Menomonee River maintstem assessment point area contains five known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is predominantly (25%) high-density residential (defined on following table) (Figure 4-75). Transportation land use makes up nearly 23% of the total land use while institutional and governmental land uses make up nearly 21% of the total land use within the area. Parks and open space along the river corridor contribute to recreation, natural areas, and open space make up nearly 20% of the total land use within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). Low-density residential, agriculture, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 11%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 26% of the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) area is impervious. TABLE 4-198 presents the land uses within the area. Downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem flows southeasterly for about two miles to 72nd Street. This downstream area encompasses 2.7 square miles and includes a portion of the Honey Creek tributary area.
4-274

TABLE 4-198 LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
1 2
Menomonee River
4-275
!
76th St.
MN-17
! ! !
Bluemound Rd.
Greenfield Av.
LEGEND
Assessment Points Water Waterbodies Watersheds Assessment Point Basins
Land Use
Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utilities Manufacturing and Industrial Civil Division
450 900 Feet
Figre 4-75 MN-17 Land Use

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The municipalities include the cities of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa. Nearly 97% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the city of Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 3% of the area. The extent of the civil divisions within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is presented in TABLE 4-199.
TABLE 4-199 CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee City of Wauwatosa Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.1 2.6 2.7 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 2.86% 97.14% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are CSOs (32%) and SSOs (22%). The largest contributors of FC are CSOs (47%) and SSOs (31%). Commercial land use (44%) and CSOs (17%) are the predominant contributors of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. As FC concentrations increase with increased flows, nonpoint sources are attributed to elevated FC concentrations at MN-17. See Figure 4-76, Figure 4-77, and Figure 4-78. Note: the black line on Figure 4-76 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed. The assessment of TP was poor. Within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17), the concentrations of TP are greatest at high and low flows which may indicate the presence of a 4-277
Menomonee River
background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps from noncontact cooling water). The high concentrations at high flows indicate that nonpoint sources contribute to elevated TP concentrations. The assessment of TSS concentrations was poor; TSS tends to increase with increasing flows. This suggests that nonpoint sources contribute to suspended solids concentrations. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-200. Note that this table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and winter data are unavailable. Note that concentrations in March samples (which include snow melt and spring runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations in samples would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations. It is difficult to assess chloride trends without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir (sediment). This chloride is gradually released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow conditions, the concentration becomes diluted (Figure 4-79). Actual water quality data are available through the MMSDs H2O Info website. Figure 4-80 presents conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for long periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment point area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-81. The DO exhibits similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0 mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet weather-induced runoff or resuspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-82). The temperature data are also within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-83). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-201 presents the Baseline 4-278
Menomonee River
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-202 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-203 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas (MN-1) through (MN-16), are estimated. TABLE 4-204 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4205 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-206 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-279
Menomonee River @ N. 70th Street (RI 09)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-76

FIGURE 4-77

North 70th Street (RI-09) Reach 908

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-78


TABLE 4-200
Menomonee River
Assessment Point MN-17 Menomonee River Downstream of Honey Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total) Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper a Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 6,926
63 1,124 196 3,622 81 496 130 11.1 11.1 100 0.111 0.074 66 1.13 1.07 16.3 6.0 0.0057 0.0024
4-283
North 70th Street (RI-09) Reach 908

Chloride
100
10
High Flows
Moist Conditions
Mid-range Flows
Dry Conditions
Low Flows
1

FIGURE 4-79

FIGURE 4-80

FIGURE 4-81

FIGURE 4-82
MN-17 MEASURED TURBIDTY

FIGURE 4-83


TABLE 4-201
Menomonee River
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

225.59 90.42 10,131 ------------4.77 0.73 284 30 28.40 12.60 2,428 93,558 12.51 0.69 235 266 302.85 18.59 3,863 14,182 1.79 0.09 16 103 3.49 2.14 222 1,429 0.25 0.05 30 10 0.53 0.15 27 43 ----62.67 20.53 2,104 102,891 3.14 1.59 135 1,591 15.65 5.62 602 24,217 6.75 0.27 178 14 463.84 3.37 2,030 0 783.73 34.29 11,021 888,741 546.93 15.66 7,707 597,651
billion counts 183,423
Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

9% 44% 25% 10% ------------0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 6% 6% 5% 1% 0% 1% 0% 12% 9% 9% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----3% 10% 5% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 2% 5% 0% 32% 17% 27% 47% 22% 8% 19% 31%
4-289
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-203
Menomonee River
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.173 0.070 7.791 141.067
-----
-----
-----
0.004 0.001 0.218 0.023
0.022 0.010 1.867 71.954
0.010 0.001 0.181 0.205
0.233 0.014 2.971 10.907
0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.013 0.171 0.023 0.079 1.099 0.007
0.000 0.000 0.021 0.033
-----
0.048 0.016 1.618
0.002 0.001 0.104
0.012 0.004 0.463 18.625
0.005 0.000 0.137 0.011
0.357 0.003 1.561 0.000
0.603 0.026 8.476 683.514
0.421 0.012 5.927 459.642
79.131 1.224
Forest
CSOs
783.73 34.29 11,021
SSOs
586.43 16.79 8,263 888,741 640,820
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

11258.23 352.21 795.73 122.34 138.41 4251.46 505,587 6,985,321 165.95 483.80 22,895 47,933 2,634 9,362 49.73 9,537 1,307 20.88 8,607 1,289
265.80 112.39 22,720 768,833
1427.07 8543.28 283.94 1371.91 48.84 144.12 24.16 74.00 31,911 31,556 435.13 123,182 9.22 3,351 807.84 87,474 11.29 29.60 4.11
2465.31 759.37 82,772 3,086,400
1039.11 441.52 501.26 44,598 143.55 16,985
1098.49 2472.86 39.28 35,398 3,507 7.52 15,366 0
5,908 8,526 1,328
399,869 18,486 404,003 2,240 12,856 2,396
408,025 455,898
4-290
SSOs

TABLE 4-205
Menomonee River
Forest
CSOs
2% 0% 1% 6%
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
33% 53% 46% 49%
1% 2% 2% 0%
2% 6% 4% 0%
0% 1% 1% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0%
1% 1% 2% 5%
4% 1% 3% 0%
25% 5% 11% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
4% 10% 8% 3%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
7% 10% 8% 22%
3% 6% 4% 3%
1% 2% 2% 3%
3% 0% 3% 0%
7% 0% 1% 0%
TABLE 4-206 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
0.010 0.000 0.142 11.419
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.145 0.055 6.496 89.753 0.005 0.002 0.294 0.034 0.010 0.006 0.616 0.120 0.002 0.001 0.123 0.017 0.002 0.000 0.111 0.017 0.003 0.001 0.292 9.879 0.018 0.001 0.410 0.405 0.110 0.004 0.006 0.000 1.583 0.043 5.138 0.238 0.018 0.010 1.124 5.191 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.110 0.017 0.029 0.165 0.031 0.032 0.010 1.064 39.657
0.013 0.006 0.573 5.243
0.006 0.002 0.218 5.858
0.014 0.001 0.455 0.045
0.032 0.000 0.197 0.000
0.008 0.000 0.106 8.234
4-291
SSOs
SSOs
2% 0% 1% 5%
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are two assessed plant communities within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The quality assessments of these plant communities range from poor to fairly good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 35% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 54% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 27% reduction from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-207. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-208 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-209 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-210 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-211 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-212 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-213 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 54% reduction in FC loading and the 35% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures and the assessment of TP would remain 4-292
Menomonee River
poor. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Assessment Point MN-17 Lower Menomonee River Downstream of Honey Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total) Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper a Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 4,198 66 704 230 1,833 84 271 147 10.9 11.0 100 0.105 0.075 67 0.93 0.89 13.2 4.9 0.0049 0.0022
4-293

TABLE 4-208
Menomonee River
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

203.22 73.12 8,755 105,165 ------------4.11 0.74 245 64 23.13 9.22 1,897 48,507 10.21 0.64 202 152 242.05 15.72 3,266 7,949 1.44 0.07 14 58 3.17 1.75 194 827 0.18 0.05 30 1 0.39 0.12 27 5 ----52.36 15.40 1,686 54,713
2.77 1.26 114 894
15.19 4.90 561 14,963
5.23 0.22 138 19
463.84 3.37 2,030 0
489.14 21.40 6,879 554,674
82.70 2.37 1,165 90,374
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

13% 49% 32% 12% ------------0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 6% 7% 6% 1% 0% 1% 0% 15% 10% 12% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----3% 10% 6% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 29% 2% 7% 0% 31% 14% 25% 63% 5% 2% 4% 10%
4-294
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-210
Menomonee River
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (C) Pasture (B) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Point Source
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
0.376 0.016 5.290
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.156 0.056 6.733 ---------0.003 0.001 0.188 0.018 0.007 1.459 0.008 0.000 0.155 0.186 0.012 2.512 0.001 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.001 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.021 ---0.040 0.012 1.297
0.002 0.001 0.088
0.012 0.004 0.431
0.004 0.000 0.106
0.357 0.003 1.561
0.064 0.002 0.896
80.880 ---0.049 37.306 0.117 6.114 0.045 0.636 0.001 0.004 -42.078 0.688 11.508 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-211 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (C) Pasture (B) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (B) Crop (C) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source
Forest
CSOs
489.14 21.40 6,879
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

10,339.50 114.61 212.56 12.73 152.26 3,427.08 448,809 4,211,565 43.77 85.12 3.68 23.59 12,822 25,057 2,440 9,801 136 405 25 1,449
255.26 93.83 20,531 459,748
1,316.40 7,022.27 320.78 1,398.79 20.47 54.19 71.25 33,816 25,703 358.99 110,815 10.73 4,146 736.51 86,054 4.48 9.69 2,981 4,054 113 586
6.33 1.08 397 73
2,451.16 660.40 81,007
880.77 381.64 36,450
422.24 120.49 16,042
1,131.27 2,472.86 41.17 37,223 3,648 7.52 15,366 0
116.78 3.34 1,646
253,657 18,290 283,873
1,933,455 224,376 287,983
554,674 127,615
4-295
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-212
Menomonee River
Forest
CSOs
2% 0% 1% 7%
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
35% 56% 47% 50%
0% 1% 1% 0%
1% 1% 3% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
1% 0% 1% 0%
1% 2% 2% 5%
5% 1% 4% 0%
24% 6% 12% 3%
1% 0% 0% 0%
5% 12% 9% 3%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 11% 8% 23%
3% 6% 4% 3%
1% 2% 2% 3%
4% 1% 4% 0%
8% 0% 2% 0%
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
0.006 0.000 0.088 7.127
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.133 0.044 5.767 54.114 0.001 0.001 0.165 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.322 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.126 0.019 0.003 0.001 0.264 5.907 0.017 0.001 0.434 0.330 0.090 0.005 1.424 3.259 0.004 0.000 0.053 0.235 0.018 0.009 1.106 3.647 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.052 0.001 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.031 0.008 1.041 24.843
0.011 0.005 0.468 2.883
0.005 0.002 0.206 3.700
0.015 0.001 0.478 0.047
0.032 0.000 0.197 0.000
0.002 0.000 0.021 1.640
4-296
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 2%
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.13 Honey Creek (Assessment Point MN-16)
Menomonee River
Honey Creek is located in the southern portion of the Menomonee River watershed. This tributary flows northerly for about 7.5 miles before its confluence with the Menomonee River. Honey Creek begins less than mile south of the intersection of Loomis Road and Layton Avenue. It flows northwesterly under Loomis Road, passes the south side of Edgewood Elementary School and the east side of Greenfield High School. Honey Creek then flows northerly beneath I-894/I-43 and then changes direction to flow northwesterly past the west side of Armour Park. The creek continues to flow northwesterly beneath Forest Home Avenue. North of I-894/I-43, the channel is concrete-lined. Honey Creek continues to flow northwesterly towards McCarthy Park where it changes direction and flows northerly through an enclosed conduit for approximately 2 miles. The creek flows within the conduit beneath State Fair Park before emerging north of I-94. Honey Creek then flows northerly past Wisconsin Lutheran High School, Bluemound Road, and St. Judes grade school before changing direction and flowing northeasterly to its confluence with the Menomonee River mainstem. Honey Creek is predominantly lined with concrete or enclosed in conduit. This assessment point area contains 15 dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Much of the riparian margin typically does not exceed 25 feet; only 28% of the creek has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) encompasses about 10.2 square miles. Downstream, it extends to a point that is located 4,400 feet upstream of Honey Creek's confluence with the mainstem. This downstream point on Honey Creek is approximately located at Wisconsin Avenue in the city of Wauwatosa. The land use within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) is predominantly transportation (31%) (Figure 4-84). High-density residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 30% of the total land use while low-density residential land uses makes up nearly 21% of the total land use within the area. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 18%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 30% of the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) is impervious. TABLE 4-214 presents the land uses within the area.
4-297
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-214 LAND USE IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
1 2
4-298
MN-15
Bluemound Rd.
MN-16
Greenfield Av.
C ii tt y o ff C y o G R E E N F II E L D GREENF ELD
27th St.
Loo
LEGEND
Ho m
Av .
Fo r
es t
mis
Land Use
Agriculture Low Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utilities Manufacturing and Industrial
Rd
850 1,700 Feet
Figre 4-84 MN-16 Land Use

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-16 assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Greenfield, Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Greendale. Nearly 35% of the 10.2 square mile assessment point area is located within the city of West Allis. The cities of Milwaukee and Greenfield occupy nearly 33 and 28% of the area, respectively. The city of Wauwatosa and the village of Greendale, together, occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the MN-16 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-215.
TABLE 4-215 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee City of Wauwatosa City of West Allis Village of Greendale Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 2.9 3.4 0.3 3.5 0.1 10.2 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 28.40% 33.49% 2.30% 34.70% 1.11% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Honey Creek are TP, FC, and DO. Within this assessment point area, the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are grass grown on hydrologic group C soils (39%) and commercial land use (36%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial (51%) and residential (32%) land uses. Commercial (63%) and residential (16%) land uses are the predominant contributors of BOD which affects DO. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The measure of FC by flow indicated that during periods of high flows, FC counts exceed the regulatory standard. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) are primarily attributed to
4-300
Menomonee River
nonpoint sources. See Figure 4-85, Figure 4-86, and Figure 4-87. Note: the black line on Figure 4-85 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Detailed analyses of DO and TP were also performed. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of TP were assessed as moderate and the data suggest that TP concentrations are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. In addition to the parameter of focus, TSS was also analyzed in detail. The TSS concentration was assessed as very good and also appears to be attributed to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) contains concrete-lined reaches; these processes likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-216. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. Actual water quality data are available from the H20 Info website. Figure 4-88 presents conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for long periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment point area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-89. The DO exhibits similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0 mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet weather induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-90). The temperature data are also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-91). As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-217 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-218 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-219 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-301
Menomonee River @ Honey Creek (RI 914)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-85

FIGURE 4-86

Honey Creek Reach 914

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-87


TABLE 4-216 BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Assessment Point MN-16 Honey Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual)
Menomonee River
Baseline Condition 9,286 72 612 259 4,073 86 325 148 11.0 10.7 97 0.074 0.049 84 0.77 0.69 14.4 7.2 0.0046 0.0016
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper a
4-305
FIGURE 4-88

FIGURE 4-89

FIGURE 4-90
MN-16 MEASURED TURBIDITY

FIGURE 4-91


TABLE 4-217
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1474.67 593.73 66,225 ---------5.53 0.76 337 54.07 24.05 4,622 37.68 1.67 851 1629.42 54.85 21,399 18.12 0.41 165 48.02 29.14 3,062 19,668 0.09 0.02 10 3 0.19 0.05 9 15 ----454.04 148.84 15,245 749,049 160.32 75.86 6,883 81,337 24.65 8.89 948 38,138 13.73 0.37 367 46 197.20 0.40 965 0 8.25 0.24 116 9,010
1,198,903 ---71 178,114 826 75,538 1,035 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-218 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)
Commercial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD

36% 63% 55% ---------0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 4% 1% 0% 1% 39% 6% 18% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----11% 16% 13% 32% 4% 8% 6% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% ----0% 0% 0% 0%
FC 51% ---0% 8% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-310
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-219
Menomonee River
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Industrial Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Crop (C) Crop (B) Crop (D) Wetland Point Source Industrial
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.212 0.085 9.513 172.218
-----
-----
-----
0.001 0.000 0.048 0.010
0.008 0.003 0.664 25.585
0.005 0.000 0.122 0.119
0.234 0.008 3.074 10.851
0.003 0.000 0.024 0.149
0.007 0.004 0.440 2.825
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002
-----
0.065 0.021 2.190 107.598
0.023 0.011 0.989 11.684
0.004 0.001 0.136 5.478
0.002 0.000 0.053 0.007
0.028 0.000 0.139 0.000
0.001 0.000 0.017 1.294
4-311
SSOs
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are three assessed plant communities within the Honey Creek assessment point area. The quality assessments of these areas range from poor to good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 16% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 47% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 17% reduction from Baseline BOD loads that are derived from the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN16). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data for this assessment point are presented in TABLE 4220. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-221 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-222 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-223 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 47% reduction in FC loading, the 16% reduction in TP loading, and the 17% reduction in BOD, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual measure and remain moderate for the swimming season measure. The assessment of TP would improve from moderate to good and the minimum DO concentrations would remain assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the warm weather months. The assessment of TSS would remain unchanged and very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments 4-312
Menomonee River
are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Honey Creek assessment point area (MN-16) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-220 YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Assessment Point MN-16 Honey Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual)
Year 2020 Condition 4,864 75 338 294 1,882 88 178 153 11.0 10.6 98 0.067 0.046 85 0.70 0.64 11.5 5.7 0.0038 0.0014
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Copper a
4-313
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-221
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (D) Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Residential Point Source
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
-----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,314.71 475.97 56,675 641,510 ------------3.67 0.55 223 57 45.36 18.14 3,722 90,403 30.49 1.35 724 466 1,307.98 43.73 18,163 42,509 14.27 0.32 137 573 22.85 12.47 1,399 5,615 0.06 0.02 10 1 0.14 0.04 9 2 ----394.58 116.31 12,717 390,496
113.15 48.16 4,664 34,354
21.92 7.10 809 20,601
10.77 0.30 287 39
197.20 0.40 965 0
7.73 0.22 109 8,443
TABLE 4-222 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Source Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Pasture (B) Pasture (C) Pasture (D) Residential Ultra Low Point Source
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

38% 66% 56% 52% ------------0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 4% 7% 1% 0% 1% 0% 38% 6% 18% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ----11% 16% 13% 32%
3% 7% 5% 3%
1% 1% 1% 2%
0% 0% 0% 0%
6% 0% 1% 0%
-----
4-314
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 1%
SSOs
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-223
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
----
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.189 0.068 8.141 ---------0.001 0.000 0.032 0.007 0.003 0.535 0.004 0.000 0.104 0.188 0.006 2.609 0.002 0.000 0.020 0.003 0.002 0.201 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 ---0.057 0.017 1.827
0.016 0.007 0.670
0.003 0.001 0.116
0.002 0.000 0.041
0.028 0.000 0.139
0.001 0.000 0.016
92.150 ---0.008 12.986 0.067 6.106 0.082 0.807 0.000 0.000 -56.093 4.935 2.959 0.006 0.000 -0.000 Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-315
SSOs
Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.14 Lower Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-18)
Menomonee River
This portion of the lower Menomonee River mainstem is located in the southeast portion of the watershed. The mainstem flows generally easterly and southerly for about three miles before reaching the downstream limit of the Menomonee River watershed. This downstream limit is located approximately 500 feet downstream of the 35th Street Viaduct. At this point, the Menomonee River discharges to the Lake Michigan estuary. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area begins at Honey Creeks confluence with the mainstem. The river flows through Hart Park passing beneath bridges at 70th and 68th Streets. The river flows east passing north of Jacobus and Doyne Parks where portions of the streambed in this area are composed of a bedrock channel. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem flows beneath USH 41 and then passes the southwest corner of the Miller Brewery. At the brewery, the river changes direction and flows southerly into Valley Park in the vicinity of the Stadium Interchange. Other features in the area include Miller Park and the Stadium Bluff Woods, which is a critical species habitat. The channel is concrete-lined from the Miller Brewery downstream to the Stadium Interchange. Towards the south side of Miller Park, the river changes direction and begins to flow easterly towards the 35th Street viaduct in the Menomonee Valley. The riparian margin varies within this area but can generally be classified as in the 26 to 50 feet wide category; only 6% of the river within this assessment point area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) encompasses 6.2 square miles and includes Woods Creek and its tributary area. Creek is either enclosed in a conduit or lined with a concrete channel. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains one known dam, drop structure or other obstruction. Most of the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) is located in the city of Milwaukee. The land use within the assessment point area for the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) is predominantly transportation (33%) (Figure 4-92). Highdensity residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 30% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 12% of the total land use within the area. Institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, lowdensity residential, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 36% of the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-224 presents the land uses within the area.
4-316
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-224 LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
1 2
4-317
76th St.
C ii tt y o ff C y o M II L W A U K E E M LWAUKEE
nd Fo D
u c La
! ! !
Bluemound Rd.
MN-18
!
Greenfield Av.
C ii tt y o ff C y o E S T A L L II S ST ALL S
LEGEND
Land Use
Institutional and Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodland and Open Lands Transportation, Communication and Utilities Manufacturing and Industrial
550 1,100 Feet

December, 2009
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-18 assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 53% of the 6.2 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Wauwatosa occupies nearly 29% of the area. The city of Wauwatosa and the village of West Milwaukee, together, occupy the remaining 18%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) is presented in TABLE 4-225.
TABLE 4-225 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee City of Wauwatosa City of West Allis Village of West Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 3.3 1.8 0.5 0.6 6.2 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 52.83% 28.79% 7.88% 10.50% 100.00%
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the Menomonee River are TP, FC, and TSS. Within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18), the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are industrial point sources (77%) and commercial land use (6%). The largest contributors of FC are commercial land use (39%) and CSOs (31%). Commercial (51%) and industrial (14%) land uses are the predominant source of TSS. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn directly affects water quality. However, approximately 75% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and poor for the swimming season. The increases in FC concentrations during high flows suggest that FC concentrations are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). See Figure 4-93, Figure 4-94, and Figure 4-95. Note: the black line on Figure 493 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. 4-319
Menomonee River
Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed as poor. The concentrations of TP exceed the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline on nearly half of the days over the year. Also, concentrations of TP are greatest at high and low flows. The higher concentrations at these flow extremes may indicate the presence of a background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to TP inputs from noncontact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows. The concentrations of TSS were also classified as poor. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. In addition to the parameter of focus, a detailed assessment of DO was performed. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-226. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-227 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-228 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-229 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point areas MN-1 through MN-17 are upstream of the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). TABLE 4-230 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-231 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-232 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-320
Menomonee River @ Falk Dam (RI 10)

400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0-400 400-600 600-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 >5000
FIGURE 4-93

FIGURE 4-94

Falk Dam (RI-10) Reach 919

Fecal Coliform
Box & Whiskers
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
Modeled Flow Data

FIGURE 4-95


TABLE 4-226
Menomonee River
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total) Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper a Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Baseline Condition 6,889 64 1,081 200 3,557 81 468 133 11.0 11.0 100 0.133 0.104 52 1.25 1.20 16 5.5 0.0056 0.0023
MN-18 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Lower Menomonee (annual) River mainstem, near Upstream Limit of Estuary
4-324

TABLE 4-227
Menomonee River
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
1,095.58 57.19 47,658 838,648
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1308.47 524.44 58,761 ---------5.44 0.83 324 35.79 15.88 3,059 ---1223.37 75.11 15,607 7.10 0.34 65 232.20 142.67 14,805 95,114 ------------262.34 85.95 8,808 430,723 169.60 85.82 7,280 86,046 38.47 13.83 1,480 59,521 12.71 0.52 335 27 15,074.16 21.85 101,144 0 -----
1,063,905 ---35 117,898 -57,290 409 Units are mass or counts per year A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
Commercial
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

7% 51% 23% ---------0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% ---6% 7% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 14% 6% ----------1% 8% 3% 16% 1% 8% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 77% 2% 39% 0% 6% 6% 18% 31% -----
39% ---0% 4% -2% 0% 3% --Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-325
SSOs
SSOs

TABLE 4-229
Menomonee River
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC
0.284 0.114 12.735 230.567
-----
-----
-----
0.001 0.000 0.070 0.008
0.008 0.003 0.663 25.551
-----
0.265 0.016 3.382 12.416
0.002 0.000 0.014 0.089
0.050 0.031 3.208 20.613
-----
-----
-----
0.057 0.019 1.909 93.345
0.037 0.019 1.578 18.648
0.008 0.003 0.321 12.899
0.003 0.000 0.073 0.006
3.267 0.005 21.920 0.000
0.237 0.012 10.328 181.750
0.000
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
SSOs
---586.43 16.79 8,263 640,820
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

12566.70 352.21 795.73 122.34 143.85 4775.90 564,349 165.95 483.80 22,895 47,933 9,362 49.73 9,537 1,307 21.71 8,930 1,324
301.59 128.27 25,779 886,731
1427.07 9766.65 291.05 1604.10 48.84 144.12 24.16 74.00 31,911 31,556 510.23 138,788 9.57 3,415 950.50 11.29 29.60 8,526 4.11 1,328
2727.65 845.32 91,580
1208.70 587.08 51,877
479.99 157.38 18,464
1111.20 39.79 35,732 3,534
17547.02 29.37 116,510 0
1879.31 91.48 58,679 1,727,390
102,279 5,908
billion counts 8,049,226 2,634
457,160 18,895 499,117 2,240 12,856 2,396 3,517,123
494,071 515,420
4-326
SSOs

TABLE 4-231
Menomonee River
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
4% 1% 4% 10%
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

24% 53% 42% 48% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 5% 4% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 5% 3% 1% 2% 0% 18% 6% 10% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 11% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 7% 21%
2% 7% 4% 3%
1% 2% 1% 3%
2% 0% 3% 0%
33% 0% 9% 0%
TABLE 4-232 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THELOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
0.023 0.001 0.712 20.953
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.152 0.058 6.845 0.004 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.278 0.581 0.116 0.002 0.000 0.108 0.016 0.004 0.002 0.313 0.017 0.118 0.001 0.006 0.387 1.683 0.004 0.000 0.041 0.229 0.019 0.012 1.241 6.054 0.001 0.000 0.072 0.027 0.002 0.000 0.103 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.029 0.033 0.010 1.111 42.661
0.015 0.007 0.629 5.993
0.006 0.002 0.224 6.252
0.013 0.000 0.433 0.043
0.213 0.000 1.413 0.000
0.007 0.000 0.100 7.773
billion counts/acre 97.634 0.032 0.114 0.016
10.756 0.383 5.545
4-327
SSOs
SSOs
1% 0% 1% 4%
Menomonee River
The flashiness within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as good. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences normal increases and decreases in stream flow following wet weather or snow melt; the natural stream flow supports the reachs natural aquatic life and habitat regime. There are five assessed plant communities located within this assessment point area. The quality assessments for these plant communities range from very poor to good. It is important to note that despite the quality assessment rating, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 66% reduction from Baseline TP loads, a 43% reduction from Baseline FC loads, and a 26% reduction from Baseline TSS loads that are derived from the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. The modeled Year 2020 water quality data are presented in TABLE 4-233. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-234 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-235 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-236 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-237 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-238 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-239 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 43% reduction in FC loading and the 66% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures as would the assessment of TP. In 4-328
Menomonee River
contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
Assessment Point MN-18 Lower Menomonee River mainstem, near Upstream Limit of Estuary Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Statistic Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Fecal Coliform Bacteria (May-September: 153 days total) Mean (cells per 100 ml) Percent compliance with single sample standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml) Days of compliance with geometric mean standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a Dissolved Oxygen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a Total Phosphorus Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Total Nitrogen Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Copper a Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Year 2020 Condition 4,214 66 685 232 1,861 85 261 147 10.9 10.9 100 0.127 0.103 52 1.06 1.02 13.1 4.7 0.0048 0.0022
4-329

TABLE 4-234
Menomonee River
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
622.89 31.76 24,452 509,902
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

1,169.25 420.73 50,374 605,081 ------------5.04 0.90 300 78 30.57 12.18 2,507 64,105 ----983.53 63.87 13,272 32,301 5.45 0.27 53 220 163.82 90.36 10,020 42,709 ------------226.46 66.61 7,294 236,646
116.42 52.89 4,794 37,593
34.24 11.05 1,264 33,717
11.03 0.47 290 39
3,338.53 11.47 57,263 0
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

17% 55% 29% 39% ------------0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 4% ----15% 8% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 12% 6% 3% ------------3% 9% 4% 15%
2% 7% 3% 2%
1% 1% 1% 2%
0% 0% 0% 0%
50% 2% 33% 0%
9% 4% 14% 33%
4-330
SSOs
-----
SSOs
-----
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-236 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
0.135 0.007 5.299 0.000
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.253 0.091 10.917 131.132 ------------0.001 0.000 0.065 0.017 0.007 0.003 0.543 13.893 ----0.213 0.014 2.876 7.000 0.001 0.000 0.011 0.048 0.036 0.020 2.172 9.256 ------------0.049 0.014 1.581 51.285
0.025 0.011 1.039 8.147
0.007 0.002 0.274 7.307
0.002 0.000 0.063 0.009
0.724 0.002 12.410 0.000
TABLE 4-237 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE)
Forest
CSOs
SSOs
----116.78 3.34 1,646
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

11,508.75 3,847.80 499,182 114.61 43.77 12,822 136 212.56 85.12 25,057 405 12.73 157.29 3.68 25 24.49 1,527 2,440 10,101
285.83 106.01 23,038 523,853
1,316.40 8,005.81 326.23 1,562.61 20.47 54.19 6.33 71.25 33,816 25,703 422.86 124,088 285,958 11.00 4,199 18,511 826.87 96,074 326,582 4.48 113 9.69 586 1.08 73 2,981 4,054 397
2,677.63 727.01 88,301
997.18 434.53 41,243
456.48 131.54 17,306
1,142.30 5,811.39 41.64 37,514 3,687 18.99 72,629 0
1,112.03 53.16 31,331
2,170,101 261,968 321,700
1,064,576 127,615
4-331
SSOs

TABLE 4-238
Menomonee River
Ultra Low
Industrial
Industrial
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
3% 1% 3% 11%
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

32% 56% 44% 48% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 5% 4% 1% 3% 0% 22% 6% 11% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 12% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 11% 8% 22%
3% 6% 4% 3%
1% 2% 2% 3%
3% 1% 3% 0%
16% 0% 6% 0%
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Wetland
Forest
CSOs
Loads TP TSS BOD FC

0.140 0.047 6.055 58.424 0.001 0.001 0.156 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.304 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.123 0.019
0.003 0.001 0.279 6.354
0.016 0.001 0.410 0.312
0.097 0.005 1.505 3.469
0.004 0.019 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.051 1.165 0.036 0.049 0.225 3.961 0.001 0.007
0.000 0.000 0.005
0.032 0.009 1.071
0.012 0.005 0.500
0.006 0.002 0.210 3.902
0.014 0.001 0.455 0.045
0.070 0.000 0.881 0.000
0.013 0.001 0.380 12.913
0.001 0.000 0.020 1.548
0.001 26.323 3.178
4-332
SSOs
SSOs
0% 0% 0% 1%

Chapter 4: Characterize The Watershed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4: Characterize The Watershed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Watershed Restoration Plan