Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERIZE THE WATERSHED

4.0

4.1

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. It includes descriptive information pertaining to the historical trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and ecological integrity, bank stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources. This chapter represents a refinement of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed. In contrast to the habitat-based discussion, the water quality and pollutant loading data and modeling results are organized by each assessment point area. As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), the RWQMPU was the starting point and set the framework for this plan it is not intended to be the final level of restoration for the watershed. The goals of the RWQMPU, and consequently the WRP, were not set to meet water quality standards in all locations of the watershed 365 days per year. Therefore, the water quality results shown in this chapter, which are based on the recommended plan from the RWQMPU, do not all meet water quality standards. However, achieving the goals will significantly reduce the annual pollutant loads and concentrations in the streams and improve habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive watershed management approach is implemented that will continue to improve water quality. 4.2 Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Note: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 consist of excerpts from 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed and to fit within the context of this WRP. Memorandum Report 194 is included in Appendix 4A. Background Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into stream systems by one of two pathways: either directly flowing overland as surface water runoff into streams or infiltrating into the soil surface and eventually flowing underground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally flow only during the wet season or large rainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called perennial streams and are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry periods. The surface water drainage system contains 31 miles of perennial and ephemeral streams within the Kinnickinnic River watershed (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts the assessment point areas, identified as KK-1 thru KK-11. As noted above, some of the habitat-based characteristics and the water quality and pollutant loading discussions utilize assessment point areas to focus the discussion. Between the discussion of habitat and water quality/pollutant loading, note that there are minor differences in aerial coverage of several of the downstream assessment point areas.

4-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Kinnickinnic 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.

4-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-1

4-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

To better understand the Kinnickinnic River watershed and the factors that shape its stream conditions, it is important to understand the effects of both spatial and temporal scales. Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance while river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins, are least susceptible. However, large disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. Similarly, on a temporal scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short term. However, if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.1 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream channelization and the construction of concrete-linings, have resulted in longer term impacts throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Historical conditions Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary area including the Kinnickinnic River has been substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.2 This conversion allowed for the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area that currently exists, but this conversion has lead to significant environmental degradation in water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.3 Further comparison of the earliest known survey of the entire Kinnickinnic River system, completed in 1836, to the present channel conditions in 2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization, channel lining, and diversion of stream channels over this time period. Straightening meandering stream channels or channelization was once a widely used and accepted technique to reduce flooding. The objectives of channelization were to reduce floods by conveying stormwater runoff more rapidly and to facilitate drainage of low-lying lands. Channelization can lead to increased water temperature due to the loss of riparian vegetation. It can also alter in-stream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating features, generally lead to a diminished suitability of in-stream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Flood minimization measures also involved the placement of concrete (both as a flow channel enhancement and as flow controls as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed channel) and removal of vegetation from channels to promote rate of flow. Historically, these measures were implemented without consideration of habitat impacts. Concrete-lined stream segments are particularly damaging, due to the creation of conditions that fragment and limit linear and lateral connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and ecosystem; limit or prevent fish and wildlife movement; increase water temperature; destroy fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat; limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing, and aesthetics; and may actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the

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

4-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

4-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-1 APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT Impervious Surface* (percent) 10-15 15-25 20-30 25-35 35-45 60-70 70-80 85-95

Kinnickinnic River

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

*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

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-2

4-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In addition, because impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow is available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall, baseflow levels are often reduced in urban streams.5 This has been observed in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, which limits recreational opportunities such as canoeing. In addition to water quantity and stream hydrology, stormwater runoff traveling over a parking lot or driveway will pick up more heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants than runoff traveling over surfaces that allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to infiltrate. This directly affects water quality and pollutant loading within the Kinnickinnic River watershed, discussed on page 4-22. Biological Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and hydrological variables. Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species abundance and distributions within aquatic systems; however, such interactions are beyond the scope of this report and are not considered further in this document. Abiotic factors such as stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature, dissolved oxygen concentrations, substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities (fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat quality. For example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high quality habitat. It is important to note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within a watershed as well as to land use directly adjacent to the stream bank. Consequently, watershed size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffer width are critical elements necessary in defining habitat quality. 4.3 Habitat Assessment within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed This section highlights habitat information for key assessment point areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data obtained from years 2000 through 2009. This assessment was based upon fish, macroinvertebrate, and habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by multiple agencies. These samples were collected for a variety of purposes and programs. However, it is important to note that the collection methods used were similar and comparable for purposes of this report. Physical and riparian The Kinnickinnic River system is comprised of about 30% concrete-lining and 30% enclosed channel, and most of the remaining open stream channel is unstable and eroding (TABLE 4-2). A 2004 stream assessment report indicated that the upper unchannelized sections of the Kinnickinnic River are severely incised (downcut or eroded streambed) and laterally unstable. Comparison of historical longitudinal profiles indicates that up to 4 to 5 feet of incision has occurred since the 1970s.6 This channel instability is due to a combination of elements that include: a high amount of urban development and associated impervious area, stormwater network designed to move runoff quickly and efficiently off the land surface; significant encroachment of urban development to the stream, which confines flows within a narrow area
5

Simmons, D., and R. Reynolds, Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long Island, NY, Water Resources Bulletin, (Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982) 6 Milwaukee County, Milwaukee County Stream Assessment, Final Report, completed by Inter-Fluve, Inc., (September, 2004)

4-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

and exposing the streambank and streambed to extremely high velocities and shear stress; and steep slopes. This is consistent with extensive areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian buffers less than 75 feet in width. More than 70% of the river corridors within the Kinnickinnic River watershed contain buffers with less than 75 feet in width. Stream widths in the Kinnickinnic River generally range from 10 to 74 feet. The Upper and Middle Kinnickinnic river mainstem assessment point areas (KK-3, KK-10) contain the most highly buffered stream reaches. Approximately 27% of the stream within assessment point area KK-3 and 23% of the stream in assessment point area KK-10 has riparian buffers that exceed 75 feet in width. Channel bed substrates throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed were dominated by gravels and coarse sands. These large substrate sizes are consistent with high velocity flows that occur throughout this watershed. However, not much instream physical information exists within this watershed. The highly buffered areas within the watershed tend to be associated with park systems. The Upper Kinnickinnic River mainstem also contains two of the six total highest quality vegetation communities in the entire watershed. The Lower Wilson Park Creek (KK-8), Holmes Avenue Creek (KK-5), and Lyons Park Creek (KK-1) assessment point areas also contain important plant community areas with fair to good quality. These areas serve as extremely important wildlife refuge areas within the Kinnickinnic River watersheds highly urbanized landscape. 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 communites including detailed mapping of these features within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. For more information on natural areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed, see the following reports: A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin7 A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District8 A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County9 Conservation Plan Technical Report10 As previously summarized within the RWQMPU, there are a total of 61 point sources identified within the Kinnickinnic River watershed that include noncontact cooling water permits, individual permits, CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. These are predominantly located within the assessment point areas that correspond to the Kinnckinnic River mainstem (KK-3, KK-10, and KK-11). There are an estimated 53 stormwater outfalls found along the Kinnickinnic River. The stormwater outfalls are not concentrated in any particular area, but are found throughout the watershed. Stormwater outfalls are far more numerous than any other type of outfall. Considering their distribution and the fact that these stormwater outfalls discharge with all rain
7

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

4-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

events (as opposed to a few events a year like CSOs), their potential for water quality impacts is far more significant. The physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to streambed and/or banks, especially if they are constructed at poor angles. These outfalls can be retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among others. It is also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration practices as well as protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. In addition to outfall design and construction, the location of the outfall is an important consideration. An outfall that discharges directly to a waterbody conveys stormwater past the riparian buffer. These conditions preclude any opportunity for the riparian buffer to filter or treat stormwater. Ideally, outfalls would discharge directly into the riparian buffer area which would allow some infiltration and filtration of the stormwater within the buffer area. Outfall pipes can be retrofit or daylighted to shift the outfall discharge point to the riparian buffer; note that the riparian buffer may need to be modified in the new discharge area to prevent erosion. Due to limited numbers of examples of infiltration and streambank protections projects withn the Kinnickinnic River watershed, Figure 4-3 depicts projects that are underway within the Menomonee River watershed. Also, see Appendix 4A for 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 Kinnickinnic River watershed.

4-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-2

4-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-3

4-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Instream biological conditions The most recent biological assessment of the Kinnickinnic River watershed identified a strong relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.11 For example, median chloride concentrations among greater Milwaukee watersheds show a positive relation with increasing land use. However, it is important to note that not all water quality constituents showed the same pattern in its relationship with urban lands; some showed opposite responses and some showed no patterns at all. However, aggregated biological indices generally present a pretty clear relationship between urban environments and habitat. Figure 4-4 shows the strong negative relationship between fisheries Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Integrity (HBI) quality with increased levels of urbanization within the greater Milwaukee watersheds.12 Hydrology plays an important role. As noted above, urbanization increases impervious surfaces, which can lead to an increase in flashiness, which subsequently affects streambank stability, streambed stability, pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics. These changes can affect habitat availability and quality. The Kinnickinnic River contains about 30 to 40% imperviousness based upon the amount of urban land development. In summary, the hydrology within the Kinnickinnic River watershed is a major determinant of stream dynamics and is a vital component of habitat for fishes and other organisms. The interactions among land use, stream characteristics, and habitat are diagramed in Figure 4-5. TABLE 4-3 presents aggregated bioassessment results from multiple watersheds from the Milwaukee area. Data from other watersheds were used to put the results of the Kinnickinnic River into context. This table really highlights the fact that the highest quality aquatic habitats tend to be located in less developed areas. In contrast, the poorest quality biological communities are located in highly urbanized areas, including the Kinnickinnic River. While urbanization is not the only determinant of habitat quality, it does tend to play a prominent role and serve as a predictor of habitat degradation. In general, SEWRPCs RWQMPU summarized that the biological community in the Kinnickinnic River watershed is limited primarily due to the following: 1) Periodic stormwater pollutant loads (associated with increased flashiness) 2) Decreased base flows and increased water temperatures due to urbanization 3) Habitat loss and continued fragmentation due to culverts, concrete lined channels, enclosed conduits, drop structures, and past channelization

11

J.C. Thomas , M.A. Lutz, and others, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5084 (2007) 12 The USEPA indicates that IBI is used in warm freshwater streams to evaluate fish species richness and composition, number and abundance of indicator species, trophic organization and function, reproductive behavior, fish abundance, and condition of individual fish. [Internet]; available from http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/html/ibihist.html.

4-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-4

4-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-5

4-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-3

4-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Urban land uses tend to increase impervious surfaces which affect stream hydrology and impact water quality. Periodic stormwater pollutant loads result in significant pollutant loading to area waterbodies. Most of the water quality impacts are associated with the first flush of rainfall or snowmelt events (wet weather event). The first flush carries most of the pollutants that have accumulated on impervious surfaces since the preceding wet weather event. Following the first flush, subsequent runoff is referred to as extended runoff; this runoff tends to transport less pollution. In general, the first flush occurs during the first 30 minutes of a wet weather event and the rest of the wet weather event produces extended runoff. Recent analyses compared the concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) among the following sources: First flush stormwater CSO SSO Extended runoff The analysis included water quality data that was gathered from 1990 to 2003, so it included both pre-tunnel and post-tunnel data. The analysis of TP within first flush stormwater indicates that TP concentrations are comparable to those found in CSOs, but tend to present in lower concentrations relative to SSOs. The concentration of TP within extended runoff is generally lower than those within the CSO and the first flush. The analysis of TSS within first flush stormwater indicates that TSS concentrations are generally higher than TSS concentrations found in CSOs, SSOs, and extended runoff. These analyses indicate that nonpoint source pollution from the first flush of wet weather events contribute to TP and TSS loads and impact water quality. Chlorides from deicing activities also affect water quality. Similarly to TP and TSS, chlorides are transported to area waterbodies during the first flush of wet weather events. This is demonstrated with recent water quality monitoring and analysis in the Menomonee River watershed. Chloride concentrations in the Menomonee River (at 70th Street) are correlated with winter and wet weather events. As expected, the measured chloride concentrations tend to be highest during the winter months when salt is applied to roadways within the Menomonee River watershed. Similar relationships among season, wet weather and in-stream chloride concentrations are expected within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. With respect to item 3 on page 4-14 (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and concrete linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) that was recently restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). While this reach is not located in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, it serves as a good example of the potential habitat improvement that can be realized by concrete removal and floodplain restoration.

4-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-6

4-19

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Channel obstructions and fragmentation There are nearly 100 potential channel obstructions within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. These structures are primarily associated with road and railway crossings in the form of culverts and bridges, but obstructions can also include concrete lined channels, drop structures, and debris jams, among others. These obstructions can form physical and/or hydrological barriers to fisheries movements, which can severely limit the abundance and diversity of fishes within stream systems.13 In addition to some of the road and rail stream crossings, the concrete lining within the Lower Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) limits fish passage due to its extreme length, lack of habitat, lack of adequate water depths, high velocities, and flashiness. As summarized by SEWRPCs RWQMPU, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish species throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed over the last 100 years. However, it is important to note that this loss of species has been disproportionately greater among reaches that are farther away from a connection with Lake Michigan (TABLE 4-4). This indicates that the poor habitat, hydrology, and water quality conditions continue to severely limit fisheries within this watershed. In general, the Kinnickinnic River contains the poorest fish, invertebrate, and algal communities within the greater Milwaukee watersheds. In fact, only two native fish species have been found within this watershed since the year 2000. However, due to its connection with the estuary and Great Lakes system, the lower reach of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem has the greatest potential for fishery improvement. This information combined with recent removal of contaminated sediments within the lower reaches of the Kinnickinnic River makes it much more likely that fish species utilization will increase within this lower part of the system. Existing water quality monitoring information The Kinnickinnic River watershed has a total of 26 surface water monitoring stations. The majority of the water quality data are being collected by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeepers Citizen Based Monitoring program. The MMSD continues to conduct bi-monthly physical and chemical sampling and analysis at six mainstem and two tributary sites on the Kinnickinnic River, including inorganic, organic, bacteriological, and instantaneous water quality measurements. The MMSD also contributes funds for the operation of flow gaging stations by the USGS on the Kinnickinnic River and some of its associated tributaries.

13

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

4-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-4

4-21

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The MMSD with USGS have also established one real-time water quality monitoring station on the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River. Using remote sensor technology, the MMSD and USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and estimating other real-time concentrations of selected water quality constituents. Real-time sensors at each location are measuring specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity along with stream flow and stage. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms that transmit data in parallel to the MMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on a real-time basis allows for water resources management decisions and provides information for citizens. 4.4 Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed As noted at the beginning of the habitat assessment section, an assessment point area has been developed for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. In most cases, the Kinnickinnic River watershed assessment point areas match, but there are minor differences in the vicinity of the estuary. With respect to water quality and pollutant loading, these assessment point areas are the land areas that the water quality model uses to calculate the delivered pollutant loads. Each assessment point 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. Within the following section, for each assessment point area, the following are presented: A map of the assessment point area showing the extent of the area (Figure 4-7) Land use in the assessment point area Civil divisions (municipalities) within in the assessment point area Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Baseline defined as:
o

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

o o

To support the development of this watershed restoration plan (WRP), the water quality models were updated to run through December 2007. The purpose of the update was to account for known changes in the watersheds and to ensure the models still adequately represent Baseline conditions. The updated modeling results for the Kinnickinnic River watershed were found to accurately simulate observed flow and water quality conditions. The Water Quality Model Refinement memo is included in Appendix 4B. Detailed Fact Sheets are located in Appendix 4C. The fact sheets use data, maps, figures, and tables to present a comprehensive picture of the Baseline conditions within each assessment point area in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The pollutant loading is presented by nonpoint sources and point sources (industrial discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The loading for nonpoint sources is further refined to estimate the delivered loads by

4-22

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

land use (expressed as loads and as percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed as units per acre per year). Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Year 2020 defined as the water quality resulting from the model assuming the following:
o

Growth in the assessment point areas as projected in the SEWRPC RWQMPU for Year 2020. 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 estimate the delivered loads by land use (expressed as loads and as percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed as units per acre per year).

o o

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

4-23

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-5 TOTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS LOADS

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

Baseline Nonpoint 2 3 TSS BOD tons 141.94 278.92 280.35 441.90 321.75 157.12 108.49 444.27 128.21 pounds 16,935 30,856 33,547 122,152 44,480 16,752 12,119 49,047 15,349

FC

TP pounds 0 458 1 335 442 0 0 0 1,155 434

Baseline Point TSS BOD tons 0.01 1.59 0.03 3.57 0.40 0 0 0 28.00 19.62 pounds 7 5,451 13 5,838 1,124 0 0 0 13,951 8,968

FC billion counts 517 2,068 1,034 16,143 0 0 0 0 1,021,327 491,755

TP pounds 626 1,352 1,205 2,181 1,448 599 444 1,727 1,696 1,499

Baseline Total TSS BOD tons 141.95 280.51 280.38 445.47 322.15 157.12 108.49 444.27 156.21 312.81 pounds 16,942 36,307 33,560 127,990 45,604 16,752 12,119 49,047 29,300 40,854

FC billion counts 247,614 330,020 470,483 474,222 361,867 202,881 145,036 583,597 1,207,138 868,504

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

billion counts 247,097 327,952 469,449 458,079 361,867 202,881 145,036 583,597 185,811 376,749

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

4-24

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5 Assessment Point Areas (Subwatersheds)

Kinnickinnic River

The Kinnickinnic River contains 10 assessment point areas. These areas are presented on Figure 4-7. 4.5.1 Lyons Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-1)

Lyons Park Creek is located in the northwestern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed, primarily within the city of Milwaukee. This tributary flows in a northerly direction within enclosed conduit, concrete-lined channel, and natural channel conditions. The creek begins about mile southeast of the intersection of Forest Home and Morgan Avenues. From that point, the creek flows northwesterly and enters enclosed conduit and flows beneath Forest Home Avenue. After emerging about 100 feet north of Forest Home Avenue, the creek flows northwesterly through Lyons Park. This reach flows within a predominantly natural channel that terminates at 57th Street. West of 57th Street, the creek flows northwesterly within a concrete-lined channel to West Lakefield Drive, located about a block south of West Oklahoma Avenue and east of 60th Street. From this point, the creek then enters enclosed conduit and flows northerly under Oklahoma Avenue and emerges at West Bennett Avenue. From that point, the creek enters a concrete-lined channel and continues to flow northerly past Fairview Elementary School and the Milwaukee Spanish Immersion School. When the creek reaches Cleveland Avenue, it again enters enclosed conduit. The creek re-emerges about 200 feet north of Cleveland Avenue, flows through a short section of concrete-lined channel, and then enters the Kinnickinnic River Parkway. At this point, the creek enters the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2), see page 4-41. For more information on Lyons Park Creek or other subwatersheds within the Kinnickinnic River, see SEWRPCs RWQMPU. There are approximately 10 dams or drop structures located along Lyons Park Creek. The width of the riparian margin is relatively narrow, with only 10% of the stream within the assessment point area having a riparian width that exceeds 75 feet. The creek predominantly flows through high-density residential neighborhoods and two commercial areas associated with Forest Home and Oklahoma Avenues. The Lyons Park Creek assessment point (KK-1) area encompasses 1.3 square miles (Figure 4-8). Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) is predominantly high-density residential (54%) and low-density residential (5%) (these are defined in the following table). Local roads and arterial streets contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 30% of the total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional, governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 11%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 31% of the area is impervious. More information pertaining to land use and the effects of imperviousness on water quality and flows are available in the RWQMPU. TABLE 4-6 presents the land uses within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1).

4-25

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-6 LAND USE IN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.3

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 4.72% 54.19% 1.93% 4.08% 5.05% 30.03% 0.00% 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.

4-26

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-7

4-27

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-8

4-28

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and Milwaukee. Nearly 88% of the 1.3 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 12%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) is presented in TABLE 4-7.
TABLE 4-7 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1)
Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.1 1.2 1.3 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 12.33% 87.67% 100.00%

Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee Total

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of dissolved oxygen (DO), total phosphorus (TP), fecal coliform (FC) and total suspended solids (TSS); however, the parameters of focus in the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) are FC and DO. The largest contributor to Baseline loads is commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were characterized as moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season. See Figure 4-9, Figure 4-10, and Figure 4-11 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-9 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail during the summer months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are highly variable in the spring. This variability suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) within the system. The decline in oxygen concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. 4-29

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on TP and TSS data. The concentrations of TP are characterized as good within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1). The concentrations of TP increase in early spring, possibly due to fertilizer applications. The concentrations of TP are fairly consistent and generally decline during the late spring, summer, and early fall months. This may be related in part to uptake by plants during the growing season. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or resuspended stream sediments. However, note that the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) contains concrete-lined reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-8. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-9 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-10 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-11 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-30

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-9

4-31

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-10

4-32

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-11

4-33

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

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

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

Baseline Condition 5,659 80 492 296 2,660 90 361 150 6.6 6.3 100 0.052 0.031 88 0.66 0.67 8.5 5.0 0.0036 0.0013

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

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen Total Suspended Solids Copper a

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

4-34

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-9

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture (B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass (B) Grass (C) Grass (D) Industrial Crop (B) Crop (C) Wetland Point Sources

Forest

CSOs ----CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

219.3 92.01 9,848 122,153

-----

-----

0.55 0.1 35 4

6.14 2.84 525 13,852

-----

311.14 17.13 3,560 14,579

-----

-----

-----

86.52 29.45 2,905 95,429

-----

1.02 0.38 39 1,079

0.68 0.03 23 1

-----

0.47 0.01 6.67 517

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-10

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Point Sources

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

SSOs SSOs 0% 0% 0% 0%

Loads TP TSS BOD FC 35% 65% 58% 49% --------0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 6% ----50% 12% 21% 6% ------------14% 21% 17% 39%

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-35

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-11 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE/ YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.26 0.11 11.54 143 --------0.00 0.00 0.04 0 0.01 0.00 0.62 16 ----0.36 0.02 4.17 17 ------------0.10 0.03 3.40 112

-----

0.00 0.00 0.05 1

0.00 0.00 0.03 0

-----

-----

0.00 0.00 0.01 1

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-36

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area (KK-1) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There is one assessed plant community located within this assessment point area. The quality of this community is assessed as fair. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 44% reduction in Baseline FC loads and a 14% reduction in Baseline BOD loads. The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the RWQMPU projection that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-12. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-13 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-14 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-15 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 44% reduction in FC loading and the 14% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. The assessments of minimum DO concentrations would remain poor and the maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good and TP would remain as good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area 4-37

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

(KK-1) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

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

Year 2020 Condition

3,184 82 278 331 1,522 92 205 153 6.6 6.3 100 0.047 0.029 89 0.61 0.61 6.8 4.0 0.0030 0.0011

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)

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

4-38

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-13

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

194.26 73.41 8,380 68,976

-----

-----

0.49 0.09 32 4

5.44 2.26 446 7,820

-----

249.18 13.63 3,031 8,233

-----

-----

-----

74.30 22.78 2,396 52,238

-----

0.90 0.30 33 609

0.46 0.02 16 1

-----

-----

0.47 0.01 7 517

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-14 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

37% 65% 58% 50%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 3% 6%

-----

47% 12% 21% 6%

-----

-----

-----

14% 20% 17% 38%

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-39

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 0%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-15 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LYONS PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(C)

Grass(B)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.23 0.09 10 81 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.01 0.00 1 9 ----0.29 0.02 4 10 ------------0.09 0.03 3 61

-----

0.00 0.00 0 1

0.00 0.00 0 0

-----

-----

0.00 0.00 0 1

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-40

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.2 South 43rd Street Ditch (Assessment Point KK-2)

Kinnickinnic River

The 43rd Street Ditch is located in the northwestern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows southeasterly to its confluence with the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River. The South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) encompasses 3.1 square miles and also includes upstream portions of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem that receives flow from Lyons Park Creek. The South 43rd Street Ditch begins about mile southwest of the intersection of Burnham Street and Miller Park Way. The stream flows easterly along a natural, but straightened channel to 43rd Street. At this point, the stream enters enclosed conduit and flows southerly along 43rd Street and then changes direction to flow about 400 feet east along Lincoln Avenue. From this point, the stream emerges and flows southerly within a straightened natural channel. The stream reenters enclosed conduit about 700 feet south of Lincoln Avenue, flows beneath the Union Pacific (UP) rail line. At the point where the creek emerges south of the rail line, it enters the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3), see page 4-56. As noted above, the 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area also contains a portion of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem. This reach of the mainstem begins immediately downstream of the Lyons Park Creek assessment point area. This point is located at the intersection of 60th Street and Cleveland Avenue and about three blocks south of Longfellow Elementary School. From this point, the river enters the Kinnickinnic River Parkway and flows easterly past Miller Park Way and into Jackson Park. Once in the park, the river changes direction and flows northerly toward the UP rail line. At the rail line, the mainstem joins the 43rd Street Ditch, which flows from the north. This point marks the downstream terminus of the 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area and is the beginning of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). This point is located at the northern end of Jackson Park within the city of Milwaukee (Figure 4-12). The 43rd Street Ditch flows through manufacturing and industrial land uses and where the stream is not enclosed in conduit, the riparian widths tend to be relatively narrow. In fact, there is no point within the assessment point area where the riparian width exceeds 75 feet. The South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. In contrast, the Kinnickinnic River mainstem flows within a natural channel through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway, which is predominantly bordered by high-density housing with some low-density housing located south of the parkway. The width of the riparian margin along the Kinnickinnic River mainstem within the 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area is variable, but is generally relatively wide throughout the Kinnickinnic River Parkway area. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river and the ditch, the land use within the South 43rd Street assessment point area (KK-2) is predominantly residential, including high-density residential (41%) and low-density residential (2%) (these are defined in the following table). Local roads and arterial streets contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 31% of the total land use. The Miller Park Way corridor and former Allis Chalmers site contribute to manufacturing and industrial land use, which make up nearly 11% of the total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 15% of the area. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 40% of the South 43rd Street 4-41

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Ditch assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-16 presents the Baseline land use in the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area.
TABLE 4-16 LAND USE IN THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

RD

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 3.1

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 2.17% 40.75% 3.67% 2.62% 8.89% 31.08% 10.82% 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.

4-42

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-12

4-43

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the South 43rd Street assessment point area (KK-2). The municipalities are the cities of Milwaukee and West Allis and the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 55% of the 3.1 square mile area is located within the city of West Allis. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 30% and the village of West Milwaukee occupies the remaining 15%. The extent of the civil divisions within the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.1 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 29.93% 54.74% 15.33% 100.00%
rd

Civil Division City of Milwaukee City of West Allis Village of West Milwaukee Total

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) are FC, and DO. The largest contributor to Baseline loads is commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were moderate for the annual measure and were good for the swimming season measure. See Figure 4-13, Figure 4-14, and Figure 4-15 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-13 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Dissolved oxygen and TP were also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate during the warm weather months and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the same time period (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are highly variable and tend to decline in winter more than would be expected. This variability 4-44

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of BOD within the system. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and likely due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on TP and TSS data. The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicates that concentrations increase with flows. This suggests that suspended solids are either primarily attributed to nonpoint sources within the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) or to in-stream erosion that would be more prevalent during high flows. Note that the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area contains some concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. The concentrations of TP are characterized as good within the area. The concentrations of TP exceed the planning guideline 50% of the time during the early spring. The concentrations of TP generally decline during the late spring, summer, and early fall months. This may be related in part to uptake by plants during the growing season. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-18. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-19 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-20 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-21 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-45

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-13

4-46

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-14

4-47

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-15

4-48

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-18 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
rd

Assessment Point KK-2 S. 43rd Street Ditch

Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual)

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

Baseline Condition 4,080 82 227 325 2,047 91 153 153 9.5 9.4 100 0.087 0.072 85 0.81 0.78 9.2 3.8 0.0033 0.0007

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

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen Total Suspended Solids Copper

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

4-49

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-19

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources

rd

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

350.01 146.84 15,718 194,960

-----

-----

0.62 0.11 39 4

6.27 2.9 536 14,142

-----

340.85 18.77 3,900 15,971

-----

133.75 89.25 8,529 37,535

-----

57.78 19.67 1,940 63,727

1.52 0.89 65 529

1.02 0.38 39 1,079

2.63 0.11 90 5

456.07 1.54 5,424.74 0

-----

1.89 0.05 26.66 2,068

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-20 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources
rd

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

26% 52% 43% 59%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 4%

-----

25% 7% 11% 5%

-----

10% 32% 23% 11%

-----

4% 7% 5% 19%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

34% 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 in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-50

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 1%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-21 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources
rd

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.32 0.13 14.32 178 --------0.00 0.00 0.04 0 0.01 0.00 0.49 13 ----0.31 0.02 3.55 15 ----0.12 0.08 7.77 34 ----0.05 0.02 1.77 58

0.00 0.00 0.06 0

0.00 0.00 0.04 1

0.00 0.00 0.08 0

0.42 0.00 4.94 0

-----

0.00 0.00 0.02 2

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-51

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area (KK-2) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. This assessment point does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as moderate during the warm weather months and the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the same time period. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in an 11% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 15% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-22. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-23 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-24 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-25 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading and the 15% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. The assessment of minimum DO concentrations would remain moderate and the maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. Furthermore, the assessment of TP would remain as good and the assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of 4-52

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

flashiness within the South 43rd Street Ditch assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-22 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE SOUTH 43 STREET DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-2)
Assessment Point KK-2 S. 43rd Street Ditch Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Year 2020 Condition 2,280 84
rd

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

132 347

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

1,201 92

92 153

Dissolved Oxygen

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

9.6 9.4 100

Total Phosphorus

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

0.082 0.071 86 0.77 0.75 8.0 3.4 0.0026 0.0006

Total Nitrogen

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

Total Suspended Solids

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

Copper

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

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

4-53

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-23 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43
RD

Kinnickinnic River

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

Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Point Sources Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Wetland

Government / Institution*

Commercial*

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

307.35 114.11 13,324 107,590

-----

-----

0.35 0.06 22 3

4.63 1.84 369 6,226

-----

275.29 15.06 3,349 9,096

-----

105.18 63.22 6,442 18,816

-----

55.45 16.67 1,833 37,718

-----

0.95 0.31 36 619

1.49 0.06 51 3

456.07 1.54 5,425 0

1.89 0.05 27 2,068

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-24 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43

RD

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

Point Sources Transportation* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Wetland

Nonpoint Sources Government / Institution* Commercial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D)

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

25% 54% 43% 59%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 3%

-----

23% 7% 11% 5%

-----

9% 30% 21% 10%

-----

5% 8% 6% 21%

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

38% 1% 18% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-54

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 1%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-25 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE SOUTH 43

RD

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

Nonpoint Sources Transportation Point Sources Residential Pasture(B)

Government / Institution

Commercial

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.28 0.10 12 98 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 ----0.25 0.01 3 8 ----0.10 0.06 6 17 ----0.05 0.02 2 34

-----

0.00 0.00 0 1

0.00 0.00 0 0

0.42 0.00 5 0

-----

0.00 0.00 0 2

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-55

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.3 Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Point KK-3)

Kinnickinnic River

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is located in the central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed and flows southeasterly towards its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) encompasses 1.3 square miles and is home to Alverno College (43rd Street and Morgan Ave.) and Pilgrims Rest Cemetery (Forest Home Avenue and 33rd Street). This reach of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem begins south of the UP rail line and about 300 feet east of 43rd Street. This point marks the confluence of the 43rd Street Ditch and the Kinnickinnic River mainstem. The river enters a concrete-lined channel and flows southeasterly along the south side of the UP rail line. The river enters about 600 feet of enclosed conduit and flows beneath two baseball diamonds located on the north end of Jackson Park. The river emerges in the northeast corner of the park and flows southerly within a concrete-lined channel, beneath Forest Home Avenue, towards the southeast corner of the park approximately located at the intersection of 35th and Manitoba Streets. From this point, the river flows easterly within a concrete-lined channel located along the south side of the Kinnickinnic River Parkway and towards St. Lukes Hospital. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem (KK-3) assessment point area terminates just upstream of the hospital and the rivers confluence with Wilson Park Creek. This downstream point is approximately located at the intersection of 30th Street and Oklahoma Avenue in the city of Milwaukee (Figure 4-16). The river flows through recreational and high-density residential land uses. North of Forest Home Avenue, the river flows through Jackson Park, which is a recreational area. South of Forest Home Avenue, the river flows through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway, which is bordered by high-density residential with some commercial land uses along Oklahoma Avenue. Within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3), the entire reach is either concrete-lined or enclosed within conduit. Overall, the width of the riparian margin varies, but is mostly narrow and less than 25 feet. Approximately 25% of the river within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) exceeds 75 feet. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area contains one dam or drop structure. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, there are two main land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). High-density residential land use contributes to the greatest use at 37% (this is defined in the following table); local roads, arterial streets, and several large parking lots contribute to transportation comprising approximately 33% of the total land use. Jackson Park and land along the river corridor contribute to recreation, natural areas, and open space land use comprising nearly 16% of the total land use. Institutional and governmental, commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 14%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 30% of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is impervious. TABLE 4-26 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3).

4-56

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-26 LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Kinnickinnic River

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.3

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 0.00% 36.60% 2.35% 11.46% 15.56% 33.11% 0.92% 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.

4-57

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-16

4-58

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and Milwaukee and the village of West Milwaukee. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 86% of the 1.3 square mile area. The city of Greenfield occupies nearly 14%. The village of West Milwaukee occupies a fraction of a percent of the land use. The extent of the civil divisions within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) is presented in TABLE 427.
TABLE 4-27 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee Village of West Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.3 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 13.60% 86.40% 0.00% 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 Kinnickinnic River is FC. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial land use for FC and grass on hydrologic group C soils for TP. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analysis, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season measure. See Figure 4-17, Figure 4-18, and Figure 4-19 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of month of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-17 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. In addition to the parameter of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO, TP and TSS data. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for

4-59

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are highly variable and tend to decline in winter more than would be expected. The variability suggests that there is either excessive algal growth or inputs of BOD within the system. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and likely due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. Total phosphorus was also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TP are characterized as good within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The concentrations of TP exceed the planning guideline 50% of the time during the early spring and generally decline during the late spring, summer, and early fall months. This may be related in part to uptake by plants during the growing season. The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. Suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches within its assessment point area. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-28. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point reach. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-29 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-30 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-31 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas KK-1 and KK-2, are estimated within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). TABLE 4-32 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-33 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 434 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-60

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-17

Kinnickinnic River

4-61

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-18

4-62

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-19

4-63

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-28

Kinnickinnic River

MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment Water Quality Point Indicator KK-3 Fecal Coliform Kinnickinnic Bacteria River Upstream (annual) of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek Baseline Condition 5,373 79

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

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 Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with dissolved oxygen standard (>2 mg/l)a Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Percent compliance with recommended phosphorus standard (0.1 mg/l) Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l)

371 305

2,747 89

260 152

Dissolved Oxygen

9.4 8.8 100 0.073 0.053 85

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen Total Suspended Solids Copper

a

0.74 0.74 10.6 4.2 0.0037 0.001

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

4-64

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-29

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

435.05 182.52 19,537 242,326

-----

-----

2.87 0.5 183 21

12.85 5.94 1,099 29,007

-----

584.1 32.16 6,683 27,369

0.21 0.01 2 12

9.56 6.38 610 2,683

-----

137.99 46.97 4,633 152,197

-----

14.93 5.6 574 15,821

6.59 0.27 226 13

-----

-----

0.95 0.03 13.33 1,034

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-30 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

36% 65% 58% 52%

-----

-----

0% 0% 1% 0%

1% 2% 3% 6%

-----

48% 11% 20% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 2% 1%

-----

11% 17% 14% 32%

-----

1% 2% 2% 3%

1% 0% 1% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-65

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 0%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-31 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.26 0.11 11.67 145 --------0.00 0.00 0.11 0 0.01 0.00 0.66 17 ----0.35 0.02 3.99 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.00 0.36 2 ----0.08 0.03 2.77 91

-----

0.01 0.00 0.34 9

0.00 0.00 0.13 0

-----

-----

0.00 0.00 0.01 1

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-32 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

SSOs ----3.31 0.09 46.66 3,618 SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

1,004.36 421.37 45,104 559,439

-----

-----

4.03 0.71 257 29

25.26 11.68 2,159 57,001

-----

1,236 68.05 14,143 57,919

0.21 0.01 2 12

143.31 95.63 9,138 40,218

-----

282.29 96.10 9,477 311,352

1.52 0.89 65 529

16.96 6.36 652 17,979

9.90 0.41 339 20

456.07 1.54 5,424.74 0

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

4-66

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-33 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources Industrial CSOs ----Point Sources Transportation Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Wetland CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

32% 60% 52% 53%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 2% 5%

-----

39% 10% 16% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 14% 11% 4%

-----

9% 14% 11% 30%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

14% 0% 6% 0%

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

TABLE 4-34 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Government / Institution Commercial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Crop(B) Crop(C)

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre

0.277 0.116 12.443 154.333

-----

-----

0.001 0.000 0.071 0.008

0.007 0.003 0.596 15.725

-----

0.341 0.019 3.902 15.978

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003

0.040 0.026 2.521 11.095

-----

0.078 0.027 2.614 85.893

0.000 0.000 0.018 0.146

0.005 0.002 0.180 4.960

0.003 0.000 0.093 0.006

0.126 0.000 1.497 0.000

0.001 0.000 0.013 0.998

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-67

SSOs

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 0%

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are two assessed plant communities within this assessment point area. The assessments of quality of these plant communities range from fair to fairly good. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 16% reduction in Baseline TP loads and a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-35. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-36 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-37 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-38 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-39 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-40 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-41 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading and the 16% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and the assessment of FC during the swimming season would remain moderate. The assessment of TP would remain good. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The assessments of the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain at good and very good, respectively. The preceding Year 2020 water 4-68

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-3) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-35 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3)
Assessment Point KK-3 Kinnickinnic River Upstream of Confluence with Wilson Park Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Year 2020 Condition 3,011 82 214 335 1,578 91 152 153 9.4 8.8 100 0.068 0.051 87 0.68 0.69 8.7 3.5 0.0030 0.0008

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

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

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

4-69

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-36

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources Industrial

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

383.66 144.99 16,550 136,226

-----

-----

2.88 0.51 184 21

10.39 4.33 853 14,947

-----

468.23 25.61 5,695 15,471

0.17 0.01 2 7

6.65 4.00 407 1,190

-----

117.60 36.06 3,792 82,683

-----

13.22 4.46 488 8,931

6.63 0.27 227 14

-----

0.95 0.03 13 1,034

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-37 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

38% 66% 59% 52%

-----

-----

0% 0% 1% 0%

1% 2% 3% 6%

-----

46% 12% 20% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 1% 0%

-----

12% 16% 13% 32%

-----

1% 2% 2% 3%

1% 0% 1% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-70

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 0%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-38 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.23 0.09 10 81 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.01 0.00 1 9 ----0.28 0.02 3 9 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1 ----0.07 0.02 2 49

-----

0.01 0.00 0 5

0.00 0.00 0 0

-----

-----

0.00 0.00 0 1

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-39 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Point Sources

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count 885.27 332.52 38,254 312,792 --------3.73 0.65 238 27

20.46 8.44 1,668 28,993

-----

992.69 54.30 12,075 32,800

0.17 0.01 2 7

111.83 67.22 6,850 20,006

-----

247.35 75.51 8,021 172,639

-----

15.07 5.08 557 10,159

8.58 0.35 294 18

456.07 1.54 5,425 0

-----

3.31 0.09 47 3,618

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

4-71

SSOs

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-40 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count

32% 61% 52% 54%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 2% 5%

-----

36% 10% 16% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 12% 9% 3%

-----

9% 14% 11% 30%

-----

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

17% 0% 7% 0%

-----

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

TABLE 4-41 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-3) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources Industrial

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.244 0.092 10.553 86.290 --------0.001 0.000 0.066 0.007

0.006 0.002 0.460 7.998

-----

0.274 0.015 3.331 9.049

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

0.031 0.019 1.890 5.519

-----

0.068 0.021 2.213 47.626

-----

0.004 0.001 0.154 2.803

0.002 0.000 0.081 0.005

0.126 0.000 1.497 0.000

0.001 0.000 0.013 0.998

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-72

SSOs

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 1%

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.4 Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-4)

Kinnickinnic River

Wilson Park Creek is located in the southeastern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows northwesterly and includes the Edgerton Ditch and its tributary area. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) encompasses 3.5 square miles and includes the northern half of General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA) and Wispark Business Park in the city of Cudahy. The creek begins in the city of Cudahy, as the Edgerton Ditch, east of Whitnall Avenue and about mile south of Layton Avenue. Edgerton Ditch flows westerly within a natural channel and then flows beneath Whitnall and Nicholson Avenues. East of Nicholson Avenue, the Edgerton Ditch enters enclosed conduit and continues to flow westerly towards Delaware Avenue. It emerges on the west side of Delaware Avenue and continues to flow westerly within a straightened natural channel beneath Pennsylvania Avenue where it enters a concrete-lined channel. West of the UP rail line, the Edgerton Channel enters the east side of GMIA and then changes direction and flows northerly along the east side of the airport. From this point, the waterway is referred to as Wilson Park Creek. Other tributaries also flow northwesterly from the city of Cudahy and from the southeastern corner of the airport. These tributaries flow into an enclosed conduit beneath the airport and eventually flow into Wilson Park Creek northwest of the airport. The downstream end of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) is approximately one block west of Howell Avenue in the city of Milwaukee (Figure 4-20). At this point, the creek exits the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) and flows into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 4-133. Upstream, Wilson Park Creek, including Edgerton Ditch, flow through low and high-density residential, manufacturing, and industrial land uses. Farther west and downstream, the creek flows through (and beneath) GMIA. The width of the riparian margins, where the creek is not enclosed in conduit, is less than 25 feet. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. Beyond the land uses adjancent to the creek, the land use within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) is predominantly transportation (63%) due to GMIA. Recreation, natural areas, and open space make up approximately 12% of the total land use. Low-density residential (this is defined in the following table) land use makes up 9% of the total land use while manufacturing and industrial, agricultural, institutional and governmental, commercial, and high-density residential land uses compose the remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 23% of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) is impervious. TABLE 4-42 presents the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area.

4-73

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-42

Kinnickinnic River

LAND USE IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Institutional & Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands, and Open Space Transportation Manufacturing and Industrial Total Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.2 0.2 3.5 Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 3.18% 9.38% 1.63% 1.76% 2.88% 12.09% 63.31% 5.77% 100.00%

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

4-74

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-20

4-75

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4). The municipalities are the cities of Cudahy, Milwaukee, and St. Francis. The city of Milwaukee occupies nearly 54% of the 3.5 square mile area. The city of Cudahy occupies nearly 43% and the city of St. Francis occupies the remaining 3%. The extent of the civil division within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) is presented in TABLE 4-43.
TABLE 4-43 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Civil Division City of Cudahy City of Milwaukee City of St. Francis Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 1.5 1.9 0.1 3.5 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 42.99% 54.02% 2.99% 100.00%

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus in Wilson Park Creek are TP, FC, and TSS. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (FC and TSS) and grass on hydrologic group C soils (TP). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, the FC concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See Figure 4-21, Figure 4-22, and Figure 4-23 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-21 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total phosphorus and TSS were also analyzed in detail. The assessment of TP concentrations within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area was moderate. The concentrations of TP exceed 5 mg/l on some days and are very high during the winter months. This might be caused by deicing fluids used at GMIA. Deicing fluids often contain phosphorus compounds that serve 4-76

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

as corrosion inhibitors. The concentrations of TP decline through the late spring, summer and early fall, which may reflect uptake by plants during the growing season. Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as poor. The data suggest that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or resuspended stream sediments. However, note that the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on DO data. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). They tended to be somewhat variable within the Wilson Park Creeks assessment point area (KK-4). On the low end of the range, DO concentrations decline more than would be expected, which suggests that there could be sources of BOD within the area. In the past, BOD loadings were likely higher with the use of glycol at the airport, but now that deicing fluids are captured at GMIA and treated at South Shore Water Reclamation Facility (SSWRF), BOD loadings should be declining, thus elevating DO levels, especially during the winter months. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. See Chapter 6, section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-44. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-45 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-46 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, TABLE 4-47 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-77

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-21

4-78

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-22

4-79

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-23

4-80

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-44 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment Point KK-4 Wilson Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 3,897 52 609 54 2,179 67 313 36 7.5 7.3 100 0.144 0.04 81 1.12 0.5 20.1 6.5 0.0041 0.0019

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)

4-81

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-45

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOAD FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Point Sources

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

463.11 210.53 20,797 257,538

6.46 7.32 290 49

2.63 3.01 114 34

3.48 0.47 204 23

12.09 5.71 1,033 27,225

80.99 2.72 1,115 1,695

986.79 37.14 10,852 48,792

-----

193.80 144.56 12,359 54,304

0.08 0.02 9 4

56.67 19.68 1,902 61,958

16.25 9.71 72,667 5,636

0.73 0.28 28 775

22.67 0.75 782 46

320.65 3.15 5,629.57 0

-----

14.77 0.42 208.17 16,143

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-46 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

21% 47% 16% 54%

0% 2% 0% 0%

0% 1% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 6%

4% 1% 1% 0%

45% 8% 8% 10%

-----

9% 32% 10% 11%

0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 4% 1% 13%

1% 2% 57% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 0% 1% 0%

15% 1% 4% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-82

SSOs 1% 0% 0% 3%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-47 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.19 0.08 8.40 104 0.00 0.00 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.42 11 0.03 0.00 0.45 1 0.40 0.01 4.38 20 ----0.08 0.06 4.99 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.01 0.77 25

0.01 0.00 29.34 2

0.00 0.00 0.01 0

0.01 0.00 0.32 0

0.13 0.00 2.27 0

-----

0.01 0.00 0.08 7

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-83

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as moderate. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. During the warm weather months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 13% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 19% reduction in Baseline TSS loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-48. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-49 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-50 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-51 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 13% reduction in TP loading, and the 19% reduction in TSS loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for both the annual and swimming season measures, the assessment of TP would remain moderate, and the assessment of TSS would remain poor. The assessments of minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4) would remain unchanged as moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions. 4-84

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-48

Kinnickinnic River

MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4)
Assessment Point KK-4 Wilson Park Creek Upstream of Holmes Avenue Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Year 2020 Condition 2,091 58 330 126 1,024 75 155 80 7.6 7.3 100 0.141 0.039 83 1.08 0.45 15.1 5.4 0.0035 0.0017

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)

4-85

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-49

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Point Sources

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 460.22 176.73 20,117 149,557 --------2.56 0.35 150 17

12.47 4.77 960 14,209

63.95 2.07 925 930

751.26 27.30 8,693 25,857

-----

183.81 120.85 11,169 31,105

-----

55.28 16.17 1,927 33,559

14.13 7.44 72,547 2,879

0.75 0.24 29 440

18.70 0.62 645 38

320.65 3.15 5,630 0

3.21 0.09 45 3,511

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-50 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

24% 49% 16% 57%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 5%

3% 1% 1% 0%

40% 8% 7% 10%

-----

10% 34% 9% 12%

-----

3% 4% 2% 13%

1% 2% 59% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 0% 1% 0%

17% 1% 5% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land

4-86

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 1%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-51 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-4) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.19 0.07 8 60 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.01 0.00 0 6 0.03 0.00 0 0 0.30 0.01 4 10 ----0.07 0.05 5 13 ----0.02 0.01 1 14

0.01 0.00 29 1

0.00 0.00 0 0

0.01 0.00 0 0

0.13 0.00 2 0

-----

0.00 0.00 0 1

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-87

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.5 Holmes Avenue Creek (Assessment Point KK-5)

Kinnickinnic River

Holmes Avenue Creek is located in the southern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows northerly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) encompasses 1.7 square miles. The creek begins west of I94 about mile north of Grange Avenue in the city of Milwaukee. From there, it flows northeasterly beneath I-94 and then enters enclosed conduit. The creek continues to flow northeasterly to a point just east of the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line and about mile west of Holler Park. At this point, the creek emerges and flows northerly within a concrete-line channel. In the vicinity of 10th Street and Carpenter Avenue, the creek changes direction and flows easterly past 6th Street and then changes direction again and flows northerly toward Layton Avenue. Approximately 500 feet north of Layton Avenue, the creek flows into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (Figure 4-24). The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area also contains a tributary to Holmes Avenue Creek. This tributary flows northeasterly from the airport spur to its confluence with Holmes Avenue Creek, just over a mile southwest of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues. Upstream of the confluence, the 1-mile reach of this tributary is entirely enclosed within conduit. Holmes Avenue Creek flows through high-density residential, manufacturing and industrial land uses. Most of the creek flows within enclosed conduit or concrete-lined channel. The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. The width of the riparian margin is narrow; the width of the riparian margin does not exceed 25 feet. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) is predominantly transportation (48%), including GMIA, highways, and large parking lots. Low-density residential makes up approximately 25% of the total land use (this is defined in the following table). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land use make up 9% of the total land use while manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land uses compose the remaining 18%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 43% of the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) is impervious. TABLE 4-52 presents the land uses within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area.

4-88

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-52 LAND USE IN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Kinnickinnic River

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1 1.7

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 25.32% 5.13% 3.23% 2.29% 8.74% 47.85% 7.44% 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.

4-89

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-24

4-90

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) is occupied by one municipality. The city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 1.7 square mile area, as shown in TABLE 4-53.
TABLE 4-53 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 1.7 1.7 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 Holmes Avenue Creek are TP and FC. The largest contributor to Baseline FC and BOD loads are commercial land use; the largest contributors to Baseline TP loads are industrial, commercial, and grass on hydrologic group C soils. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area. These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, the FC concentrations were assessed as poor for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. See Figure 4-25, Figure 4-26, and Figure 4-27 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-25 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. The concentrations of TP were characterized as moderate. The concentrations of TP tend to be greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 75% of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are present within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5). In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The concentrations of minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations exhibit considerable variability, particularly during the spring months. This variability could be explained by excessive attached

4-91

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

algae growth or inputs of BOD. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or resuspended stream sediments. However, note that the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-54. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables and BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-55 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-56 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-57 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-92

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-25

Kinnickinnic River

4-93

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-26

4-94

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-27

4-95

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-54 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment Point KK-5 Holmes Avenue Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 5,178 72 385 106 2,162 86 213 58 9.9 9.8 92 0.131 0.072 77 1.24 0.91 9.7 3.8 0.0040 0.0009

4-96

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-55

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Point Sources Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(C)

Crop(B)

Forest

CSOs ----SSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 415.11 188.71 18,642 230,847 --------1.33 0.18 78 9 4.56 2.15 390 10,271 3.62 0.12 50 76 376.91 14.18 4,145 18,636 0.27 0.01 3 16 50.50 37.66 3,220 14,149 ----46.62 16.19 1,565 50,971

104.11 62.19 16,274 36,112

0.73 0.28 28 775

2.47 0.08 85 5

441.64 0.40 1,123.94 0

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-56 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

29% 59% 41% 64%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

26% 4% 9% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 12% 7% 4%

-----

3% 5% 3% 14%

7% 19% 36% 10%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

31% 0% 2% 0%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-97

CSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-57 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.39 0.18 17.37 215 --------0.00 0.00 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.36 10 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 0.35 0.01 3.86 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.05 0.04 3.00 13 ----0.04 0.02 1.46 48

0.10 0.06 15.17 34

0.00 0.00 0.03 1

0.00 0.00 0.08 0

0.41 0.00 1.05 0

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-98

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There is one assessed plant community located within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area. The quality assessment of the plant communtiy is fair. It is important to note that all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The concentrations of minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in an 11% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 16% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-58. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-59 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-60 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-61 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading, and the 16% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. The assessment of TP would remain moderate and both the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain good during the warm weather months. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water

4-99

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Holmes Avenue Creek assessment point area (KK-5) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-58 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5)
Assessment Point KK-5 Holmes Avenue Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 2,824 73 213 199 1,192 85 120 111 9.9 9.8 92 0.124 0.069 78 1.18 0.86 7.8 3.1 0.0033 0.0008

4-100

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-59

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point sources Industrial

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

363.64 144.94 15,602 126,860

-----

-----

1.13 0.15 66 7

4.02 1.66 325 5,607

2.73 0.09 39 40

288.77 10.49 3,341 9,939

0.17 0.01 2 7

47.26 31.07 2,872 8,358

-----

40.49 12.32 1,310 27,581

90.19 47.48 15,495 19,742

0.61 0.20 22 400

1.59 0.05 55 3

441.64 0.40 1,124 0

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-60 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

28% 58% 39% 64%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

23% 4% 8% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 12% 7% 4%

-----

3% 5% 3% 14%

7% 19% 38% 10%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

34% 0% 3% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-101

SSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-61 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HOLMES AVENUE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-5) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.34 0.14 15 118 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.27 0.01 3 9 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.04 0.03 3 8 ----0.04 0.01 1 26

0.08 0.04 14 18

0.00 0.00 0 0

0.00 0.00 0 0

0.41 0.00 1 0

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-102

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.6 Villa Mann Creek (Assessment Point KK-6)

Kinnickinnic River

Villa Mann Creek is located in the south-central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows northeasterly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) encompasses 1.1 square miles. The creek begins just northeast of 35th Street and Layton Avenue, about mile north of Barnard Park and Greenfield Middle School. From this point, the creek flows northeasterly within a natural channel through a high-density residential neighborhood and then flows beneath I-894. North of I-894, the creek continues to flow northeasterly towards 27th Street. On the east side of 27th Street and north of the 27th Street interchange on I-894, the creek enters enclosed conduit and flows easterly to a point about mile northeast of the interchange (Figure 4-28). This point marks the downstream terminus of Villa Mann Creek assessment point (KK-6). This is also Villa Mann Creeks confluence with another stream within the assessment point area. This is a mile-long tributary that flows northerly within enclosed conduit and a natural channel. Downstream, Villa Mann Creek flows into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 4-133. The upstream and westernmost reach of Villa Mann Creek, south of I-894, flows through a high density residential area. North of this area, downstream, the creek flows through transportation land uses associated with I-894 and the 27th Street interchange on I-894. East of 27th Street, the creek flows within enclosed conduit, beneath an undeveloped area located east of the 27th Street commercial area. In general, the width of the riparian margin along Villa Mann Creek is relatively narrow. The width is typically less than 25 feet, but in some areas located north of I894, the riparian width widens to between 50 and 75 feet (but never exceeds 75 feet). There are three dams or drop structures located within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) is predominantly low-density residential (42%) and high-density residential (8%) land uses (these are defined in the following table). Interstate highway, local roads and arterials contribute to transportation land uses that make up approximately 34% of the total land use. Commercial land use along with recreation, natural areas, and open space, institutional and governmental, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 34% of the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) is impervious. TABLE 4-62 presents the land uses within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area.

4-103

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-62 LAND USE IN THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.1

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 41.53% 8.35% 6.84% 3.11% 6.17% 33.91% 0.09% 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.

4-104

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-28

4-105

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and Milwaukee. Nearly 74% of the 1.1 square mile area is located within the city of Greenfield. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 26%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-63.
TABLE 4-63 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE VILLA MANN ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.8 0.3 1.1 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 74.05% 25.95% 100.00%

Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee Total

Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) are FC and DO. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial (FC and BOD) and grass on hydrologic group C soils (TP). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, the FC concentrations were assessed as poor for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. See Figure 4-29, Figure 4-30, and Figure 4-31 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-29 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm weather months. The maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the same time period (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) exhibit considerable variability, particularly during the spring months. This variability could be explained by excessive attached algae growth or inputs of BOD. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely 4-106

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. However, the decline during the summer months is greater than would normally be expected. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on TP and TSS data. The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. The concentrations of TP tend to be greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 50% of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are present within Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6). The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) contains concretelined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analyses described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-64. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-65 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-66 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-67 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-107

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-29

Kinnickinnic River

4-108

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-30

4-109

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-31

4-110

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-64 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment Point KK-6 Villa Mann Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 5,565 72 557 38 2,339 87 346 19 7.4 6.6 70 0.061 0.034 85 0.70 0.74 8.9 5.0 0.0041 0.0013

4-111

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-65

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Point Sources

Commercial*

Residential*

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 200.84 91.31 9,019 111,690 --------0.36 0.05 21 2 3.62 1.71 309 8,151 5.34 0.18 74 112 281.04 10.58 3,091 13,896 ----0.47 0.35 30 131 ----41.87 14.54 1,406 45,782 63.57 37.97 2,725 22,050 1.01 0.39 39 1,065 1.11 0.04 38 2 ---------

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. ** = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-66 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources CSOs SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

34% 58% 54% 55%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 2% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0%

47% 7% 18% 7%

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

7% 9% 8% 23%

11% 24% 16% 11%

0% 0% 0% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-112

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-67 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.29 0.13 13.17 163 --------0.00 0.00 0.03 0 0.01 0.00 0.45 12 0.01 0.00 0.11 0 0.41 0.02 4.51 20 ----0.00 0.00 0.04 0 ----0.06 0.02 2.05 67

0.09 0.06 3.98 32

0.00 0.00 0.06 2

0.00 0.00 0.06 0

-----

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-113

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Villa Mann Creek assessment point area does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm weather months. The maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good during the same time period. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 45% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 17% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area (KK-6). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Year 2020 water quality is presented in TABLE 4-68. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-69 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-70 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-71 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 45% reduction in FC loading, the 11% reduction in TP loading, and the 17% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure and remain good for the swimming season measure. The assessments of minimum DO concentrations would remain poor and the maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. The assessment of TP would remain good and the assessment of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory

4-114

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Villa Mann Creek assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-68 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6)
Assessment Point KK-6 Villa Mann Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 3,041 73 309 122 1,294 85 196 68 7.4 6.7 71 0.054 0.032 87 0.62 0.65 7.3 3.7 0.0033 0.0010

4-115

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-69

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Point Sources Industrial

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

178.26 70.98 7,652 62,117

-----

-----

0.19 0.03 11 1

3.19 1.31 257 4,428

4.16 0.13 60 61

216.36 7.86 2,504 7,447

0.03 0.00 0.00 1

0.00 0.00 0.00 1

-----

36.83 11.20 1,194 25,023

55.12 29.02 2,252 12,067

0.62 0.21 23 407

0.39 0.01 13 1

-----

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-70 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

36% 59% 55% 56%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 2% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0%

44% 7% 18% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

7% 9% 9% 22%

11% 24% 16% 11%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-116

SSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-71 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE VILLA MANN CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-6) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.26 0.10 11 91 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 0.01 0.00 0 0 0.32 0.01 4 11 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 ----0.05 0.02 2 37

0.08 0.04 3 18

0.00 0.00 0 1

0.00 0.00 0 0

-----

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-117

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.7 Cherokee Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-7)

Kinnickinnic River

Cherokee Park Creek is located in the south-central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows northeasterly to its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. The Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) encompasses one square mile. The creek begins east of the Park and Ride facility located on the north side of I-894 and east of Loomis Road within the city of Greenfield. From this point, the creek flows northeasterly within a natural channel. The creek enters enclosed conduit at 36th Street and generally continues to flow north and northeasterly. The creek emerges along the south side of Arlington Cemetery; from this point, the creek flows northerly within enclosed conduit and concrete-lined channel towards the center of the cemetery. There is also a tributary to the Cherokee Park Creek that flows northeasterly through the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). This tributary generally flows within a natural channel and begins east of Good Hope Cemetery, flows underneath 43rd Street, and then flows northeasterly through Zablocki Park and Golf Course. At the intersection of Loomis Road and 35th Street, the tributary changes direction and flows easterly towards the center of Arlington Cemetery and its confluence with Cherokee Park Creek. From the center of the cemetery, the creek flows northerly, beneath Howard Avenue, and along the west side of the Loomis Center Mall. On the north side of Loomis Road, the creek continues to flow northerly within enclosed conduit beneath the Point Loomis Shopping Center (Figure 4-32). On the north side of Morgan Avenue and immedialy east of Curtin Elementary School, Cherokee Park Creek flows into Wilson Park Creek and into the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), see page 4133. With a few exceptions, the width of the riparian margin along Cherokee Park Creek is relatively narrow and less than 25 feet. Approximately 20% of the creek within the assessment point area has a riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet. There is a dam or drop structurewithin the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area. Towards the southern headwaters of the creek, it flows through low density residential land uses and then flows through the Arlington Cemetery. Between the north side of the cemetery and its confluence with Wilson Park Creek, Cherokee Park Creek flows through high-density residential and commercial land uses. Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) is predominantly transportation, including highways, local roads, and arterial streets (31%). High-density residential (18%) and low-density residential (17%) also contribute to the total land use (these are defined in the following table). The two large cemeteries contribute to institutional and governmental land uses that make up nearly 16% of the total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space along with commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 17%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 27% of the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) is impervious. TABLE 4-72 presents the land uses within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area.

4-118

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-72 LAND USE IN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.0

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 17.28% 17.61% 3.04% 15.99% 13.99% 31.08% 1.01% 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.

4-119

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-32

4-120

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and Milwaukee. Nearly 91% of the 1.0 square mile assessment point area is located within the city of Greenfield. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 9%. The extent of the civil divisions within the area is presented in TABLE 4-73.
TABLE 4-73 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.9 0.1 1.0 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 90.86% 9.14% 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 Cherokee Park Creek are FC and DO. The largest contributor to Baseline loads is commercial land use. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, FC concentrations were assessed as moderate for the annual measure and good for the swimming season measure. See Figure 4-33, Figure 4-34, and Figure 4-35 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-33 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Dissolved oxygen was also analyzed in detail. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm weather months. During the same time period, the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The DO concentrations within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) exhibit considerable variability, particularly during the spring months. This variability could be explained by the excessive growth of attached algae or inputs of BOD. The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and is likely due to the decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. However, the decline during 4-121

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

the summer months is greater than would normally be expected. During these months, the concentrations of DO fall below the water quality standard more than 75% of the time. In addition to the parameters of concern, detailed assessments of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. The concentrations of TP tend to be greatest at high flows, with concentrations exceeding the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline nearly 50% of the time during high flows. This suggests that nonpoint source loads of TP are present within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). Total suspended solids concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed assessments described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-74. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-75 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-76 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-77 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-122

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-33

Kinnickinnic River

4-123

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-34

4-124

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-35

4-125

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-74 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment Point KK-7 Cherokee Park Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 4,715 75 453 47 2,187 87 337 19 7.3 6.5 71 0.054 0.033 88 0.67 0.59 7.7 5.0 0.0036 0.0012

4-126

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-75

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Point Sources

Residential*

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs ----SSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 140.17 58.81 6,295 78,076 --------1.32 0.23 84 9 0.33 0.15 29 755 ----222.21 12.23 2,542 10,412 0.02 0.00 0 1 3.46 2.31 221 972 ----29.74 10.12 998 32,803 36.18 21.23 1,552 12,572 8.90 3.34 342 9,433 1.63 0.07 56 3 ---------

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-76 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Point Sources

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

32% 54% 52% 54%

-----

-----

0% 0% 1% 0%

0% 0% 0% 1%

-----

50% 11% 21% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 2% 2% 1%

-----

7% 9% 8% 23%

8% 20% 13% 9%

2% 3% 3% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-127

CSOs

-----

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-77 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.23 0.10 10.24 127 --------0.00 0.00 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 1 ----0.36 0.02 4.14 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 0.00 0.36 2 ----0.05 0.02 1.62 53

0.06 0.03 2.52 20

0.01 0.01 0.56 15

0.00 0.00 0.09 0

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-128

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was assessed as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area does not contain an assessed plant community. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as poor during the warm weather months. During the same time period, the maximum DO concentrations were characterized as very good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 44% reduction in Baseline FC loads and a 15% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area (KK-7). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-78. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider water quality special variance standards. TABLE 4-79 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-80 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-81 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 44% reduction in FC loading and the 15% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain moderate for the annual measure and would deteriorate from good to moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of the minimum concentration of DO would remain poor and the assessment of the maximum concentration of DO would remain very good. The assessment of TP would remain good and TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 condition indicates that the assessment of flashiness 4-129

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

within the Cherokee Park Creek assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-78 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-7)
Assessment Point KK-7 Cherokee Park Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 2,632 75 265 137 1,260 85 203 66 7.3 6.7 71 0.049 0.031 89 0.61 0.53 6.7 4.0 0.0030 0.0010

4-130

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-79

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources Industrial

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units lbs tons pounds billion counts

119.37 44.44 5,174 41,924

-----

-----

1.17 0.21 75 8

0.65 0.27 53 917

-----

176.95 9.68 2,152 5,847

0.02 0.00 0 1

5.41 3.25 331 968

-----

27.49 8.29 906 18,836

32.01 16.90 1,318 7,086

8.28 2.75 310 5,455

0.99 0.04 34 2

-----

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-80 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

32% 52% 50% 52%

-----

-----

0% 0% 1% 0%

0% 0% 1% 1%

-----

48% 11% 21% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 4% 3% 1%

-----

7% 10% 9% 23%

9% 20% 13% 9%

2% 3% 3% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-131

SSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-81

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE CHEROKEE PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-7) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.19 0.07 8 68 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 1 ----0.29 0.02 4 10 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.01 0.01 1 2 ----0.04 0.01 1 31

0.05 0.03 2 12

0.01 0.00 1 9

0.00 0.00 0 0

-----

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-132

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan 4.5.8 Wilson Park Creek (Assessment Point KK-8)

Kinnickinnic River

This portion of the Wilson Park Creek is located in the central portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This tributary flows northwesterly and includes the downstream portion of Villa Mann Creek and tributary area. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) encompasses 3.8 square miles and begins at the downstream end of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-4). The beginning point is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the intersection of Layton and Howell Avenues. From this point, within a concrete-lined channel, the creek flows westerly toward 5th Street and then changes direction and flows northwesterly toward the intersection of Armour Avenue and 6th Street. On the west side of 6th Street, a natural channel replaces the concrete-lined channel. The creek continues to flow northwesterly towards the point where I-94/I-43 passess over 13th Street. About 600 feet southeast of that point, the creek re-enters a concrete-lined channel and flows under the interstate and 13th Street and re-enters a natural channel west of 13th Street, north of Bolivar Avenue. The creek continues to flow northwesterly into Wilson Park to its confluence with Villa Mann Creek on the west side of the park. From this point, the creek changes direction and flows northerly and then westerly past the Wilson Recreation Center towards the northwestern corner of Wilson Park. The creek enters a concrete-lined channel west of 20th Street. From the northwestern corner of the park, the creek flows northerly within a concrete-lined channel beneath Howard Avenue toward the Point Loomis Shopping Center. South of the commercial area, the creek enters enclosed conduit and flows beneath the shopping center and emerges east of Curtin Elementary School. The creek then flows northerly within a concrete-lined channel to Euclid Avenue where it enters enclosed conduit and flows along the west side of Saint Lukes Medical Center to its confluence with the Kinnickinnic River mainstem (Figure 4-36). In addition to the places noted above, the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) also contains Mount Olivet Cemetery, the eastern third of Arlingon Cemetery, a portion of St. Adalberts Cemetery, the southeastern quarter of Alverno College and the Second Home Cemetery. The Wilson Park Creek assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. The riparian width exceeds 75 feet along about 10% of the creek in this assessment point area. The land use within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) is predominantly transportation (34%), including highways, local roads, and arterial streets. High-density residential (23%) and low-density residential (12%) also contribute to the total land use (these are defined in the following table). Wilson Park contributes to recreation, natural areas, and open space land use and makes up nearly 15% of the total land use. Institutional and governmental, along with commercial, and manufacturing and industrial land uses compose the remaining 16%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 31% of the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area is impervious. TABLE 4-82 presents the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area.

4-133

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-82

Kinnickinnic River

LAND USE IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.1 3.8

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 12.39% 23.32% 3.98% 9.32% 14.74% 33.57% 2.68% 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.

4-134

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-36

4-135

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). The municipalities are the cities of Greenfield and Milwaukee. Nearly 94% of the 3.8 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Greenfield occupies the remaining 6%. The extent of the civil divisions within the area is presented in TABLE 4-83.
TABLE 4-83 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Civil Division City of Greenfield City of Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.2 3.6 3.8 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 5.70% 94.30% 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 Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) are TP and FC. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are commercial land uses for FC and BOD and grass on hydrologic group C soils for TP. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, FC concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See Figure 4-37, Figure 4-38, and Figure 4-39 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-37 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. The concentrations of TP were characterized as moderate. They are more consistent and generally lower during the late spring, summer, and early fall. This may be related in part to uptake by plants during the growing season. During the winter months, the concentration of TP increases; this could be related to de-icing activities at the airport. De-icing chemicals contain phosphorus that serve as corrosion inhibitors.

4-136

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed assessments described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-84. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-85 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-86 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-87 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads from the assessment point areas KK-4, KK-5, KK-6, and KK-7 are also estimated within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). TABLE 4-88 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-89 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-90 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-137

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-37

4-138

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-38

4-139

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-39

4-140

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-84 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment Point KK-8 Wilson Park Creek, USGS Gauge Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) Baseline Condition 5,124 56 697 35 2,552 73 357 26 10.9 11.2 100 0.116 0.055 77 0.96 0.7 14.1 4.8 0.0044 0.0018

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)

4-141

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-85

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources Industrial

Forest

CSOs ----SSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

579.21 252.75 26,011 322,375

-----

-----

3.34 0.53 206 23

9.73 4.55 832 21,940

1.40 0.05 19 29

828.40 38.00 9,284 39,947

1.89 0.08 20 110

44.01 32.27 2,807 12,335

-----

113.44 38.91 3,808 124,694

115.47 68.97 4,950 40,051

20.83 7.83 801 22,075

8.98 0.33 309 18

-----

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-86 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

34% 57% 53% 55%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 2% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0%

48% 9% 19% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 7% 6% 2%

-----

7% 9% 8% 21%

7% 16% 10% 7%

1% 2% 2% 4%

1% 0% 1% 0%

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-142

CSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-87

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(C)

Grass(B)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.27 0.12 11.94 148 --------0.00 0.00 0.09 0 0.00 0.00 0.38 10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0 0.38 0.02 4.26 18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0 0.02 0.01 1.29 6 ----0.05 0.02 1.75 57

0.05 0.03 2.27 18

0.01 0.00 0.37 10

0.00 0.00 0.14 0

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-88 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Government / Institution Point Sources

Transportation

Commercial

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs -----

SSOs ----14.77 0.42 208.17 16,143 SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 1798.45 802.11 80,764 1,000,525 6.46 7.32 290 49 2.63 3.01 114 34 9.84 1.47 594 67

30.33 14.28 2,593 68,342

91.35 3.07 1,258 1,912

2695.35 112.13 29,915 131,683

2.19 0.09 23 127

292.24 217.15 18,637 81,891

0.08 0.02 9 4

288.33 99.44 9,680 316,208

335.59 200.07 98,167 116,421

32.20 12.11 1,239 34,123

36.87 1.27 1,271 74

762.29 3.55 6,753.51 0

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

4-143

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-89

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

28% 54% 32% 57%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 4%

1% 0% 1% 0%

42% 8% 12% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 15% 7% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 7% 4% 18%

5% 14% 39% 7%

1% 1% 0% 2%

1% 0% 1% 0%

12% 0% 3% 0%

-----

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

TABLE 4-90 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Point Sources

Commercial

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 1% CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.256 0.114 11.493 142.374 0.001 0.001 0.041 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.085 0.010 0.004 0.002 0.369 9.725 0.013 0.000 0.179 0.272 0.384 0.016 4.257 18.738 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.018 0.042 0.031 2.652 11.653 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.041 0.014 1.377 44.996 0.048 0.028 13.969 16.567 0.005 0.002 0.176 4.856 0.005 0.000 0.181 0.011 0.108 0.001 0.961 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.030 2.297

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-144

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. There are two assessed plant communities within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area. Both of these plant communities were assessed as poor. It is important to note that despite their quality assessment ratings, all plant communities provide necessary habitat for a variety of wildlife. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 17% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 46% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 16% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-91. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-92 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-93 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-94 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-95 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8), TABLE 4-96 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-97 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 46% reduction in FC loading, the 17% reduction in TP loading, and the 16% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure, but improve from poor to

4-145

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

moderate during the swimming season. The assessments of the minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain very good. The assessment of TP would remain moderate and the assessment of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Wilson Park Creek assessment point area (KK-8) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-91 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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 2,794 63 386 99 1,315 79 189 63 10.9 11.2 100 0.110 0.053 79 0.91 0.63 11.3 3.7 0.0037 0.0015

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

4-146

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4-147

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-92

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Forest Point Sources Industrial

CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

516.47 199.65 22,232 176,667

-----

-----

3.08 0.49 190 21

8.65 3.57 703 11,805

1.08 0.03 16 16

647.48 29.22 7,676 21,859

1.57 0.06 18 64

37.75 24.54 2,296 6,286

-----

98.18 29.89 3,183 66,440

100.00 52.65 4,085 20,501

18.69 6.26 694 12,408

7.85 0.29 270 16

-----

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-93 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

36% 58% 54% 56%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 2% 4%

0% 0% 0% 0%

45% 8% 19% 7%

0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 7% 6% 2%

-----

7% 9% 8% 21%

7% 15% 10% 6%

1% 2% 2% 4%

1% 0% 1% 0%

-----

-----

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-148

SSOs

-----

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-94 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.24 0.09 10 81 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.30 0.01 4 10 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.02 0.01 1 3 ----0.05 0.01 1 31

0.05 0.02 2 9

0.01 0.00 0 6

0.00 0.00 0 0

-----

-----

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-95 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count 1,637.95 636.74 70,778 557,126 --------8.13 1.23 492 55 28.98 11.57 2,298 36,966 71.92 2.33 1,040 1,046 2,080.81 84.56 24,366 70,949 1.78 0.07 19 73 274.24 179.71 16,669 46,718 ----258.27 77.87 8,520 171,439

291.46 153.49 95,696 62,274

28.95 9.66 1,079 19,111

29.51 1.01 1,017 60

762.29 3.55 6,754 0

-----

3.21 0.09 45 3,511

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

4-149

SSOs

SSOs -----

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-96

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(D)

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs ----CSOs -----

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count 30% 55% 31% 57% --------0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 38% 7% 11% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 15% 7% 5% ----5% 7% 4% 18%

5% 13% 42% 6%

1% 1% 0% 2%

1% 0% 0% 0%

14% 0% 3% 0%

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

TABLE 4-97 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE WILSON PARK CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-8) (UNITS /ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources Industrial

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.233 0.091 10.072 79.279 --------0.001 0.000 0.070 0.008

0.004 0.002 0.327 5.260

0.010 0.000 0.148 0.149

0.296 0.012 3.467 10.096

0.000 0.000 0.003 0.010

0.039 0.026 2.372 6.648

-----

0.037 0.011 1.212 24.396

0.041 0.022 13.617 8.862

0.004 0.001 0.154 2.719

0.004 0.000 0.145 0.008

0.108 0.001 0.961 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.006 0.500

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-150

SSOs

SSOs 0% 0% 0% 0%

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

4.5.9 Kinnickinnic River Mainstem (Assessment Points KK-9 and KK-10) This portion of the mainstem is located in the northern portion of the Kinnickinnic River watershed and flows easterly to the Lake Michigan estuary. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point areas KK-9 and KK-10 encompass 3.3 square miles. Within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9), the river begins on the west side of St. Lukes Hospital, immediately downstream of its confluence with Wilson Park Creek. From there, the river flows easterly through the Kinnickinnic River Parkway, beneath 27th Street and then south of the Forest Home Cemetery and the north of Pulaski High School. East of 20th Street and the Kinnickinnic Sports Center, the river changes direction and flows northerly along 16th Street. The river continues to flow northerly until it reaches Pulaski Park. In the center of the park, the river changes direction and begins to flow easterly. On the east side of the park, the river reaches the downstream terminus of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) and the point where the river flows into the combined sewer service area. Throughout the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9), the river flows within a concretelined channel. Despite being confined to a concrete-lined channel, the width of the riparian area varies substantially, from less than 25 feet to greater than 75 feet. The relatively wide riparian width is likely due to the types of land uses the river flows through. These land uses include recreational and open space land uses associated with Pulaski High School and the Kinnickinnic Sports Center located northeast of intersection of Oklahoma Avenue and 20th Street (Figure 4-40). The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) does not contain any dams or drop structures. Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land use within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) is predominantly institutional and governmental (28%), which is largly due to the Forest Home Cemetery, Saint Francis Hospital and St. Lukes Hospital. Highdensity residential (25%) (this is defined on the following table) and transportation (24%) also contribute to the total land use. Land adjacent to the river corridor contributes to recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses, which make up nearly 15% of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial land uses, along with commercial land uses compose the remaining 8%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 27% of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) is impervious. TABLE 4-98 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9).

4-151

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-98 LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA KK-9
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Kinnickinnic River

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.2

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 0.00% 24.66% 2.32% 28.19% 14.98% 24.28% 5.57% 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.

4-152

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-40

4-153

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) is occupied by one municipality. The city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 1.2 square mile area, as shown in TABLE 4-99.
TABLE 4-99 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 1.2 1.2 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 within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) are TP and FC. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are SSOs. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses in the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, FC concentrations were assessed as poor for the annual measure and moderate during the swimming season. See Figure 4-41, Figure 4-42, and Figure 4-43 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-41 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. Total phosphorus was also analyzed in detail. The concentrations of TP were characterized as poor within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). They tended to be highest during high and low flows. The higher concentrations at flow extremes suggest a background source of TP that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to inputs of non-contact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are consistently high within the 4-154

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and a function of decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. Total suspended solids concentrations were also characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or resuspended stream sediments. However, note that the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) contains concrete-lined and / or enclosed reaches. As a result, re-suspension of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples show chloride values that fall below levels that are acutely toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations in March consistently exceed the chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no winter data. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir (sediment) that is gradually released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. As flow increases, the concentrations decline due to dilution (Figure 4-44). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analyses described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-100. Note that this table reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-101 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4103 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas KK-1 through KK-9, are also estimated within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9). TABLE 4-104 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-105 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-106 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-155

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-41

Kinnickinnic River

4-156

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-42

4-157

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-43

4-158

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-44

4-159

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-100 MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment Point Water Quality Indicator 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 Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) a Baseline Condition 5,785 74

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

654 254

3,360 87

343 146

11.3 11.4 100

0.206 0.171 24 1.39 1.22 14.5 4.8 0.0047 0.0019

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

4-160

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-101

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Point Sources

Commercial*

Residential*

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 172.78 72.49 7,759 96,243 --------1.26 0.22 80 9 8.50 3.93 726 19,172 ----281.59 15.50 3,222 13,195 ----30.60 20.42 1,951 8,588 ----32.53 11.08 1,092 35,883 ----12.00 4.50 462 12,718 1.68 0.07 57 3 222.80 0.45 812.54 0 56.04 2.45 788.07 63,549 876.49 25.10 12,350.50 957,778

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-102 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

10% 46% 26% 8%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 3% 2% 2%

-----

17% 10% 11% 1%

-----

2% 13% 7% 1%

-----

2% 7% 4% 3%

-----

1% 3% 2% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0%

13% 0% 3% 0%

3% 2% 3% 5%

52% 16% 42% 79%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-161

SSOs

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-103 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.23 0.09 10.13 126 --------0.00 0.00 0.10 0 0.01 0.01 0.95 25 ----0.37 0.02 4.21 17 ----0.04 0.03 2.55 11 ----0.04 0.01 1.43 47

-----

0.02 0.01 0.60 17

0.00 0.00 0.08 0

0.29 0.00 1.06 0.00

0.07 0.00 1.03 83

1.14 0.03 16.13 1,251

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-104 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Point Sources

Transportation

Government / Institution

Commercial

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

SSOs 56.04 2.45 788.07 63,549 894.57 25.62 12,605.32 977,539 SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 2,975.60 1,295.98 133,627 1,656,206 6.46 7.32 290 49 2.63 3.01 114 34 15.13 2.40 931 105 64.09 29.89 5,478 144,515 91.35 3.07 1,258 1,912 4,213.03 195.68 47,280 202,797 2.40 0.10 25 139 466.14 333.20 29,726 130,696 0.08 0.02 9 4 603.16 206.61 20,249 663,443 337.11 200.96 98,233 116,950 61.17 22.97 2,353 64,820 48.45 1.75 1,667 98 1,441.15 5.55 12,990.78 0.00

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

4-162

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-105 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

26% 55% 36% 41%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0%

37% 8% 13% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 14% 8% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 9% 6% 16%

3% 9% 27% 3%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

13% 0% 4% 0%

0% 0% 0% 2%

24%

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

TABLE 4-106 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT (KK-9) (UNITS /ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Point Sources

Government / Institution

Commercial

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

SSOs 8% 1% 3% 0.005 0.000 0.069 5.566 0.078 0.002 1.104 85.613 SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.261 0.114 11.703 145.051 0.001 0.001 0.025 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.082 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.480 12.657 0.008 0.000 0.110 0.167 0.369 0.017 4.141 17.761 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.012 0.041 0.029 2.603 11.446 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.053 0.018 1.773 58.104 0.030 0.018 8.603 10.242 0.005 0.002 0.206 5.677 0.004 0.000 0.146 0.009 0.126 0.000 1.138 0.000

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-163

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. Within this area, the flashiness was characterized as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 51% reduction in Baseline TP loads and a 78% reduction in Baseline FC loads within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-9). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Modeled Year 2020 water quality within this assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-107. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. TABLE 4-108 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-109 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-110 presents the Year 2020 annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. TABLE 4-111 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-112 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-113 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 78% reduction in FC loading and the 51% reduction in TP loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessments of TP would remain poor. Fecal coliform would remain poor for the annual measure and would remain moderate during the swimming season. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good as would the assessments of minimum and maximum concentrations of DO. The preceding Year

4-164

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-9) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-107 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENTPOINT AREA (KK-9)
Assessment Point KK-9 Kinnickinnic River Downstream of Wilson Park Creek Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) a Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards. Year 2020 Condition 3,028 78

363 297

1,579 89

184 153

11.3 11.4 100

0.195 0.162 25 1.29 1.12 11.7 3.8 0.0040 0.0017

4-165

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-108

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Point Sources

Commercial*

Residential*

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 152.88 57.71 6,592 54,255 --------1.31 0.23 83 9 7.52 3.13 617 10,808 ----226.07 12.37 2,750 7,470 ----21.23 12.75 1,300 3,796 ----27.35 8.38 882 19,218 ----10.62 3.58 392 7,169 1.90 0.08 65 4 222.80 0.45 813 0 27.48 1.20 386 31,156 124.87 3.58 1,760 136,455

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-109 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

19% 56% 42% 20%

-----

-----

0% 0% 1% 0%

1% 3% 4% 4%

-----

27% 12% 18% 3%

-----

3% 12% 8% 1%

-----

3% 8% 6% 7%

-----

1% 3% 3% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

27% 0% 5% 0%

3% 1% 2% 12%

15% 3% 11% 50%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-166

SSOs

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-110 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE /YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.20 0.08 9 71 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.01 0.00 1 14 ----0.30 0.02 4 10 ----0.03 0.02 2 5 ----0.04 0.01 1 25

-----

0.01 0.00 1 9

0.00 0.00 0 0

0.29 0.00 1 0

0.04 0.00 1 41

0.16 0.00 2 178

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-111 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Point Sources

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count 2,676.11 1,026.97 115,623 924,173 --------13.16 2.11 813 91 56.96 23.13 4,584 76,767 71.92 2.33 1,040 1,046 3,299.58 151.22 39,191 111,219 1.95 0.08 21 80 407.30 259.67 24,818 70,519 ----532.97 161.75 17,422 363,296 291.46 153.49 95,696 62,274 54.64 18.33 2,028 36,439 39.99 1.45 1,376 81 1,441.15 5.55 12,991 0 27.48 1.20 386 31,156 131.40 3.76 1,852 143,584

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

4-167

SSOs

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-112

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Grass(D) Grass(B) Grass(C) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources Industrial

Forest

CSOs 0% 0% 0% 2% CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion count

30% 57% 36% 51%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0%

36% 8% 12% 6%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 14% 8% 4%

-----

6% 9% 5% 20%

3% 8% 30% 3%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

16% 0% 4% 0%

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

TABLE 4-113 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-9) (UNITS / ACRE /YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.234 0.090 10.126 80.939 --------0.001 0.000 0.071 0.008

0.005 0.002 0.401 6.723

0.006 0.000 0.091 0.092

0.289 0.013 3.432 9.741

0.000 0.000 0.002 0.007

0.036 0.023 2.174 6.176

-----

0.047 0.014 1.526 31.817

0.026 0.013 8.381 5.454

0.005 0.002 0.178 3.191

0.004 0.000 0.120 0.007

0.126 0.000 1.138 0.000

0.002 0.000 0.034 2.729

0.012 0.000 0.162 12.575

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-168

SSOs

SSOs 1% 0% 1% 8%

Watershed Restoration Plan KK-10

Kinnickinnic River

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) is located downstream of the combined sewer service area that is located between 16th and 6th Streets, which in turn, is located downstream of mainstem assessment point area KK-9 (Figure 4-45). Within assessment point area KK-10, the river begins at 6th Street and flows southeasterly toward I-94/I-43. Just east of 6th Street, the river flows within a concrete-lined channel, but then enters a natural channel west of 5th Street. Farther downstream and east of I-94/I-43, the river changes direction and flows northeasterly to Chase Avenue, just south of Baran Park. Chase Avenue marks the downstream terminus of the Kinnickinnic River mainstem within assessment point area KK-10; farther downstream, the river flows into the estuary. The width of the riparian margin is relatively narrow within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10). This assessment point area does not contain any dams or drop structures. For the most part, the river flows through industrial, manufacturing, and transportation land uses. Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) is predominantly high-density residential (37%) (this is defined in the following table). Transportation, including highway, arterial streets, and local roads contribute to transportation, which makes up approximately 36% of the total land use. Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses and institutional and governmental land uses make up 18% of the total land use. Manufacturing and industrial, commercial, and low-density residential land uses compose the remaining 9%. Based on an analysis of land use information used to develop the water quality data, approximately 33% of the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10) is impervious. TABLE 4-114 presents the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10).

4-169

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-114 LAND USE IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Land Use Agriculture Low Density Residential
1 2

Kinnickinnic River

Land Use Included in Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 2.1

Percent of Land Use within Assessment Point Area 0.00% 0.12% 37.34% 3.42% 8.75% 8.79% 35.54% 6.04% 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.

The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) assessment point area is occupied by one municipality. The city of Milwaukee occupies the entire 2.1 square mile area, as shown in TABLE 4-115.
TABLE 4-115 CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Civil Division City of Milwaukee Total Civil Division within Assessment Point Area (sq mi) 2.1 2.1 Percent of Assessment Point Area within Civil Division 100.00% 100.00%

4-170

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-45

Kinnickinnic River

4-171

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality

Kinnickinnic River

Water quality was characterized in terms of DO, TP, FC and TSS; however, the parameters of focus within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) are TP and FC. The largest contributors to Baseline loads are grass on hydrologic group C soils and CSOs (TP), CSOs (FC), and commercial (BOD). It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in turn, directly affects water quality. However, approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source FC load is attributed to unknown sources. These are sources of FC that cannot be attributed to the assumed FC loads from the land uses within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10). These sources may be caused by illicit connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. In the following loading tables, the unknown sources loads are distributed amongst the impervious land use classifications in proportion to the distribution of known sources. The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet presented in Appendix 4C. Based on detailed water quality modeling analyses, FC concentrations were assessed as poor for both the annual measure and swimming season. See

4-172

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-46, Figure 4-47, and Figure 4-48 for FC data as a function of days per year, FC data as a

function of months of the year, and FC data as a function of stream flow, respectively. Note: the black line on Figure 4-46 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year. The concentrations of TP were characterized as poor within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10). Concentrations tended to be highest during high and low flows. The higher concentrations at flow extremes suggest a background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to inputs of non-contact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows. In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of DO are consistently high within the Kinnickinnic River assessment point area (KK-10). The decline in DO concentrations during the summer months is typical and a function of decreased solubility of oxygen in warmer water. The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. The data indicate that suspended solids are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized with water sample data. These samples show chloride values below levels that are acutely toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations in spring often exceed the chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no winter data. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir that is gradually released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. At high flow conditions, dilution takes over, lowering the chloride concentration (Figure 4-49). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions. In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the Baseline water quality data, summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-116. This table also reflects compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed in the next paragraph. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards. As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading. On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-117 presents the annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4119 presents the annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas KK-1 through KK-10, are also estimated within the 4-173

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10). TABLE 4-120 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-121 presents the percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-122 presents the cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.

4-174

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-46

4-175

Watershed Restoration Plan Figure 4-47

Kinnickinnic River

4-176

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-48

4-177

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Figure 4-49

4-178

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-116

Kinnickinnic River

MODELED BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
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 Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) a Baseline Condition 5,859 74

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

842 229

3,401 86

498 131

11.4 11.5 100

0.196 0.165 27 1.36 1.21 13.2 4.7 0.0048 0.0019

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

4-179

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-117 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

339.48 142.43 15,245 189,095

-----

-----

1.57 0.28 100 11

3.78 1.75 323 8,533

-----

473.44 26.07 5,417 22,184

1.28 0.06 14 73

55.36 36.94 3,530 15,536

-----

88.43 30.10 2,969 97,529

86.13 50.55 3,694 29,929

13.07 4.90 503 13,854

2.66 0.11 91 5

0.00 0.66 2,869.22 0

433.20 18.95 6,091.83 491,238

0.47 0.01 6.67 517

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-118 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Point Sources

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

23% 46% 37% 22%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 1% 1% 1%

-----

32% 8% 13% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 12% 9% 2%

-----

6% 10% 7% 11%

6% 16% 9% 3%

1% 2% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 7% 0%

29% 6% 15% 57%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-180

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 0%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

TABLE 4-119 BASELINE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs 0.32 0.01 4.46 360

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.25 0.10 11.16 138 --------0.00 0.00 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.24 6 ----0.35 0.02 3.97 16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0 0.04 0.03 2.58 11 ----0.06 0.02 2.17 71

0.06 0.04 2.70 22

0.01 0.00 0.37 10

0.00 0.00 0.07 0

0.00 0.00 2.10 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 0

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-120 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(D) Grass(B) Grass(C) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

SSOs 895.04 25.63 12,611.98 978,056 SSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds

3,315.08 1,438.40 148,872

6.46 7.32 290 49

2.63 3.01 114 34

16.69 2.68 1,031 116

67.87 31.64 5,801 153,048

91.35 3.07 1,258 1,912

4,686.48 221.75 52,697 224,981

3.67 0.16 39 212

521.50 370.14 33,256 146,232

0.08 0.02 9 4

691.59 236.71 23,218 760,972

423.24 251.51 101,927 146,879

74.24 27.87 2,856 78,674

51.11 1.86 1,758 103

1,441.15 6.20 15,860.00 0

489.24 21.40 6,879.91 554,787

billion counts 1,845,301

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

4-181

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-121

Kinnickinnic River

BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(C) Crop(B) Forest Point Sources

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

26% 54% 36% 38%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 3%

1% 0% 0% 0%

37% 8% 13% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 14% 8% 3%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5% 9% 6% 16%

3% 9% 25% 3%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

11% 0% 4% 0%

4% 1% 2% 11%

20%

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

TABLE 4-122 BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Point Sources

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

SSOs 7% 1% 3%

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.259 0.113 11.645 144.341 0.001 0.001 0.023 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.081 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.454 11.972 0.007 0.000 0.098 0.150 0.367 0.017 4.122 17.598 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.017 0.041 0.029 2.601 11.438 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.054 0.019 1.816 59.524

0.033 0.020 7.973 11.489

0.006 0.002 0.223 6.154

0.004 0.000 0.138 0.008

0.113 0.000 1.241 0.000

0.038 0.002 0.538 43.396

0.070 0.002 0.987 76.504

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-182

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan Baseline Habitat and Related Issues

Kinnickinnic River

The flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) was evaluated. The index of flashiness quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. In this area, the flashiness was assessed as poor. This assessment of flashiness suggests that this reach experiences rapid increases and decreases in stream flow, which has the potential to disturb aquatic life and habitat. The Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10) does not contain any assessed plant communities. Dissolved oxygen is another key factor affecting habitat suitability. Insufficient DO (less than 5.0 mg/l) will stress aquatic life. Maintaining sufficient DO concentrations throughout the year is an important component of aquatic habitat. However, excessive DO concentrations (greater than 15 mg/l) can also harm aquatic life, especially during warm weather months. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm weather months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled flashiness and water quality parameters affecting habitat under Baseline conditions. Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality Implementation of the recommendations of the SEWRPC RWQMPU would result in a 24% reduction in Baseline TP loads, a 42% reduction in Baseline FC loads, and a 20% reduction in Baseline BOD loads within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area (KK-10). The major reason for the reduction in Baseline FC loads is the projection in the RWQMPU that 33% of the unknown FC source loads will be eliminated. The assumption made in the RWQMPU (Planning Report No. 50, Chapter 10) was that 33% of the unknown sources would be identified and eliminated by the year 2020. The 33% was determined based on professional judgment, considering the challenges and expense of finding and fixing the sources. Modeled Year 2020 water quality for the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area is presented 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. TABLE 4-127 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant load, TABLE 4-128 presents the Year 2020 percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-129 presents the Year 2020 cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Notwithstanding the 42% reduction in FC loading, the 24% reduction in TP loading, and the 20% reduction in BOD loading, water quality modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of FC would remain poor for the annual measure, but improve from poor to moderate during the swimming season. The assessment of TP would also remain poor. The

4-183

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

assessments of both the minimum and maximum concentrations of DO would remain as very good. The assessments of TSS would remain unchanged as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicate that the assessment of flashiness within the Kinnickinnic River mainstem assessment point area would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.

TABLE 4-123 MODELED YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10)
Assessment Point KK-10 Kinnickinnic River near Upstream Limit of Estuary Water Quality Indicator Fecal Coliform Bacteria (annual) 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 Mean (mg/l) Median (mg/l) a Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards. Year 2020 Condition 3,091 78

449 292

1,634 89

253 152

11.4 11.5 100

0.185 0.155 28 1.26 1.11 10.7 3.9 0.0040 0.0017

4-184

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-124

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Pasture(B) Ultra Low* Industrial* Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

294.85 111.30 12,713 104,636

-----

-----

1.47 0.26 94 11

3.35 1.39 275 4,810

-----

366.23 20.03 4,455 12,102

1.02 0.05 12 41

41.19 24.73 2,522 7,364

-----

74.16 22.71 2,390 52,109

76.21 40.24 3,138 16,872

10.53 3.55 389 7,113

2.73 0.11 93 6

0.00 0.66 2,869 0

262.51 11.48 3,692 297,682

0.00 0.01 7 517

Units are mass or counts per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

TABLE 4-125 YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation* Government / Institution* Commercial* Residential* Point Sources

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low*

Industrial*

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC 26% 47% 39% 21% --------0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% ----32% 8% 14% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 8% 1% ----7% 10% 7% 10%

7% 17% 10% 3%

1% 2% 1% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 9% 0%

23% 5% 11% 59%

Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. * = Impervious surface - unknown source loads added to these land uses. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D. The grass classes are aggregations of grass located at properties classified as impervious land.

4-185

SSOs

0% 0% 0% 0%

SSOs

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-126

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Point Sources

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre 0.22 0.08 9 137 --------0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 6 ----0.27 0.01 3 16 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.03 0.02 2 10 ----0.05 0.02 2 68

0.06 0.03 2 0

0.01 0.00 0 9

0.00 0.00 0 0

0 0.00 2 0

0.19 0.01 3 389

0.00 0 1

Units are mass or counts per acre per year Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

TABLE 4-127 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Point Sources

Commercial

Residential

Pasture(B)

Ultra Low

Industrial

Industrial

Grass(B)

Grass(C)

Grass(D)

Wetland

Crop(B)

Crop(C)

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts 2,970.96 1,138.27 128,336 1,028,809 --------14.63 2.37 907 102 60.30 24.52 4,858 81,577 71.92 2.33 1,040 1,046 3,665.81 171.26 43,645 123,321 2.97 0.12 33 120 448.49 284.40 27,340 77,884 ----607.13 184.47 19,812 415,405 367.67 193.74 98,835 79,146 65.17 21.88 2,417 43,552 42.72 1.56 1,469 87 1,441.15 6.20 15,860 0 289.99 12.69 4,078 328,838 131.40 3.78 1,858 144,101

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

4-186

SSOs

SSOs 0

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 4-128

Kinnickinnic River

YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (PERCENT)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(C) Grass(B) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds tons pounds billion counts

29% 56% 37% 44%

-----

-----

0% 0% 0% 0%

1% 1% 1% 4%

1% 0% 0% 0%

36% 8% 12% 5%

0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 14% 8% 3%

-----

6% 9% 6% 18%

4% 9% 28% 3%

1% 1% 1% 2%

0% 0% 0% 0%

14% 0% 5% 0%

3% 1% 1% 14%

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

TABLE 4-129 YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (KK-10) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Nonpoint Sources Transportation Government / Institution Commercial Residential Pasture(B) Ultra Low Industrial Industrial Grass(B) Grass(C) Grass(D) Wetland Crop(B) Crop(C) Point Sources

Forest

CSOs

Loads TP TSS BOD FC

Units pounds/acre tons/acre pounds/acre billion counts/acre

0.232 0.089 10.039 80.474

-----

-----

0.001 0.000 0.071 0.008

0.005 0.002 0.380 6.381

0.006 0.000 0.081 0.082

0.287 0.013 3.414 9.646

0.000 0.000 0.003 0.009

0.035 0.022 2.139 6.092

-----

0.047 0.014 1.550 32.493

0.029 0.015 7.731 6.191

0.005 0.002 0.189 3.407

0.003 0.000 0.115 0.007

0.113 0.000 1.241 0.000

0.023 0.001 0.319 25.722

0.010 0.000 0.145 11.272

Cumulative units are weights (or billion counts) per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year. Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present in the given assessment point area. (B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.

4-187

SSOs

SSOs 1% 0% 1% 6%