Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Chapter 2: Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Watershed Restoration Plan

The primary purpose of this Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP or Plan) is to develop an adaptive plan with stakeholders that works towards cost-effective water quality and habitat improvement in the watershed. Recognizing the need to work towards meeting water quality standards and that stakeholders would like to see improvements (particularly to habitat) that may go beyond meeting water quality standards, the WRP provides specific actions that can be implemented in the short term (three to five years) and lays out a more general plan for the long term to meet these objectives. The WRPs will use the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) as the stakeholder group for development of the plans and the vehicle for the Plan implementation. 2.2 2.2.1 Pathway to the Watershed Restoration Plans The RWQMPU and MMSD 2020 Facilities Planning Process (2002-2007)

The United States Environmental Protection Agencys (USEPA) watershed approach to facilities planning has been completed in southeastern Wisconsin by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), in partnership with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the regions 208 planning agency. This combined, innovative planning project called the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) consisted of the MMSDs 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP) and SEWRPCs Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU). The 2020 FP component of the WQI was completed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in 2007 and concluded the following: 1) Nonpoint pollution (i.e., stormwater runoff) is the largest source of fecal coliform bacteria, a primary pollutant of concern; however it should benoted that a significant fraction of the nonpoint bacteria load could be coming from failing (exfiltraing) sanitary sewers or potentially illicit sanitary connections. The annual bacteria load percentages by source category to the six Greater Milwaukee Watersheds (GMW) are shown in Figure 21. 2) Eliminating the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that occur two to three times per year and the very infrequent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) that still may occur during extreme wet weather conditions accompanied by widespread flooding will result in little or no water quality improvement on an annual basis. 3) Significant improvements to water quality can only be achieved through regional implementation of extensive measures to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. 4) The MMSDs primary focus of the 2020 FP must be to develop a Recommended Plan that meets the regulatory requirements regarding MMSDs point sources. 5) Recommendations for nonpoint control measures are presented in the RWQMPU because MMSD lacks authority to implement regional nonpoint control measures.

2-1

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

6) There is no real framework for implementation of the recommendations of the RWQMPU regarding the reduction of nonpoint stormwater pollution (nonpoint stormwater in the planning efforts included surface runoff and discharges from storm sewers and drainage ditches).

Rural Nonpoint Stormw ater 2%

Industrial < 0.1%

SSOs 4% CSOs 10%

Urban Nonpoint Stormw ater 84%

Figure 2.1: Annual Bacteria Load Percentages By Source Category To The Menomonee River Watershed Year 2000 Conditions 2.2.2 Forging a New Path As the WQI was being completed, many stakeholders in the Milwaukee area began to realize that a means of implementing the broader recommendations of the RWQMPU was needed. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure 2-2, which was an attempt to address the question - what next? This question was often accompanied by the question - why cant we forge a new path?

2-2

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Note that this figure shows an organization called the Milwaukee Regional Partnership Initiative. This has been renamed the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust. Figure 2-2: What Pathways Exist For Progress? The USEPA encourages and supports watershed area planning intended to achieve needed water quality improvements in the most cost effective manner. The RWQMPU recommends a holistic set of pollution abatement actions that will ultimately lead to significantly improved water quality in the GMW. These actions will address regulatory goals in terms of water quality improvement, and must be implemented by a variety of governmental agencies and individual property owners. The question for the Milwaukee area was how to start this process? 2.3 2.3.1 Plan Implementation Considerations Consideration of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analyses

A workshop on Integrated Watershed Implementation Planning was held in March 2007 and was attended by USEPA, WDNR, SEWRPC, MMSD and technical consultant staff, and other local and national leaders in watershed planning. The purpose was to form the foundation for the

2-3

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

WQI implementation plan and, more specifically, consider the next steps for water quality improvement in the Milwaukee area. The agenda for this meeting is shown in Appendix 2A. Input received at the workshop was intended to result in the formation of a technically- and socially-feasible integrated watershed implementation plan that has the support of key stakeholders, employing innovative implementation approaches (e.g., water quality trading, watershed-based permitting, phased total maximum daily loads (TMDL)s, wet weather water quality standards) intended to effectively and efficiently attain water quality standards in the GMW. As a result of this workshop and many subsequent meetings in 2007, the MMSD, working in concert with the USEPA and the WDNR, considered the initiation of a third party TMDL effort. The drivers for the third party TMDL were that the WDNR was not planning to initiate any TMDL work in the GMW for many years, and the implementation of Chapter NR 151 Runoff Management, Wisconsin Administrative code (NR 151), a state of Wisconsin nonpoint pollution regulation with compliance deadlines in 2008 and 2013. An additional concern was that the water quality improvement efforts begun under the WQI should continue given the work already accomplished and the momentum established in the community. This momentum was exemplified by the formation of a new collaborative organization, the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) in the spring of 2008. 2.3.2 Third Party TMDL and NR151 In October 2007, the MMSD Commission approved a contract with the 2020 Facilities Plan technical team to conduct third party TMDLs for the major watersheds in Milwaukee the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River and Estuary/Lake Michigan watersheds. Once this effort was approved, preliminary negotiations began with the WDNR staff to enlist their input into the process and to begin technical discussions on the existing 303(d) listed pollutants and other matters (see the WDNRs website for more information on impaired waters and the 303(d) list). 1 In other words, MMSD, its technical team and the WDNR began in depth technical discussions regarding the scope of the third party TMDL. Typically, a TMDL is the framework for assessing load allocations in a watershed and is one of the first steps in identifying the actions needed in a watershed to meet applicable water quality standards. In the case of the GMW, the states regulatory program, which is based on performance standards contained in NR 151, has already been implemented. The performance standards contained in NR 151 require permitted municipalities with separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) loads by 20% by 2008 and 40% by 2013 from areas of existing development. New development must implement stormwater management practices to reduce the TSS load from the site by 80%. Technical standards have been developed by the state to implement the prescribed performance standards. Other provisions of the regulations prescribe performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural facilities and agricultural practices that are nonpoint sources and require implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) when and if the Wisconsin legislature provides funding for these facilities.
1

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2008 Methodology for Placing Waters on the Impaired Waters List, http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/2008/2008methodology.htm

2-4

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The MMSD and its technical team discussed with the WDNR the relationship between the third party TMDL effort and the NR 151 regulatory requirements, which are essentially technologybased requirements. Discussions between MMSD and the WDNR regarding application of NR 151 requirements independent of TMDL findings changed the course and form of the GMW TMDL program. 2.3.3 TMDLs and the Clean Water Act The discussion between the MMSDs technical team and the WDNR related to some fundamental assumptions of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). Specifically, MMSDs technical team and the WDNR analyzed the relative merits of building nonpoint/stormwater water quality improvement actions from the top down using a uniform technology program, or from the bottom up starting with existing water quality data and building programs specifically to meet water quality objectives. The similarity between the NR 151 regulatory requirement and the CWA is that the application of a uniform technology program is fundamentally assumed to be the minimum effort needed to meet water quality standards. Additional water quality improvement effort was assumed to be required when this minimum initial activity based upon uniform technology application did not result in meeting water quality standards. The original CWA envisioned that nonpoint/stormwater improvement would be based solely on water quality, not on uniform, minimum technology requirements. As outlined in a recent publication from the University of Texas 2: TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load and is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive from all of its sources and still meet water quality standards set by the state for designated uses. Though TMDLs have only recently been thrust into the spotlight, they are not a new idea. The TMDL program is simply the enforcement of rules provided in the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Sections 303 (a), 303 (b), and 303 (c) of the CWA mandate that states develop water quality standards for water bodies within their boundaries based on the designated uses of these water bodies. These sections also provide guidelines for development and review of these standards. The provisions in the CWA that called for non-point source pollution control and TMDLs were largely ignored for 20 years following the passage of the CWA partly due to our lack of knowledge concerning non-point source pollution and its control. Instead, efforts to control water pollution were focused on implementing best available technology to clean up point-source pollution. Many challenges exist in the implementation of the TMDL program. Non-point source pollution, which is basically stormwater runoff that has been polluted by land use, is still not well understood. It is difficult to quantify loadings produced by non-point source pollution and to predict the water quality responses of water bodies due to these loadings. Also, the connection of non-point source pollution to land use means that it must be controlled through land use practices, or the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). For the same reasons we do not understand non-point source pollution, we do not fully understand the effectiveness of BMPs. Furthermore,
2

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Effects on Land Use Planning By: Lee C. Sherman; CE 385D Water Resources Planning and Management University of Texas at Austin, May 5, 2001

2-5

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

many landowners are affected by the TMDL program and must be involved in the planning process. Considering that 21,000 water bodies were reported that did not meet water quality standards, and that the resources of most state environmental agencies are limited, the challenges facing the TMDL program are obviously substantial. 2.3.4 Wisconsin DNR Nonpoint Pollution Program Chapter NR 151 Runoff Management, Wisconsin Administrative Code (NR 151)

The WDNR, believing that the top down technology-based regulatory program of NR 151 would result in the most cost effective and equitable area-wide water quality improvement, believes that a third party TMDL effort would only add to the requirements of NR 151. The NR 151 regulation has the following purpose: NR 151.001 Purpose. This chapter establishes runoff pollution performance standards for nonagricultural facilities and transportation facilities and performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural facilities and practices designed to achieve water quality standards as required by s. 281.16 (2) and (3), Stats. This chapter also specifies a process for the development and dissemination of department technical standards to implement the nonagricultural performance standards as required by s. 281.16 (2) (b), Stats. If these performance standards and prohibitions do not achieve water quality standards, this chapter specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in conformance with s. NR 151.004. As noted in the above excerpt from the NR 151 rule, the rule makes the assumption that if these standards and prohibitions do not meet water quality standards, the chapter specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in conformance with s. NR 151.004. The language of NR 151.004 is as follows: NR 151.004 State targeted performance standards. For some areas, implementation of the statewide performance standards and prohibitions in this chapter may not be sufficient to achieve water quality standards. In those cases, the department shall determine if a specific waterbody will not attain water quality standards after substantial implementation of the performance standards and prohibitions in this chapter, using actual or predicted modeling or monitoring. If the department finds that water quality standards will not be attained using statewide performance standards and prohibitions but the implementation of targeted performance standards would attain water quality standards, the department shall promulgate the targeted performance standards by rule. Note: Pursuant to s. 281.16 (2) (a) and (3) (a), Stats., the performance standards shall be designed to meet state water quality standards. The position of the WDNR is that imposition of the NR 151 performance standards will be required in all cases in the state, and should the performance standards not result in the attainment of water quality standards, then the WDNR would promulgate targeted performance standards as noted in NR 151.004. NR 151 never contemplated that water quality standards could be attained without the imposition of the uniform technology standards of NR 151, only

2-6

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

that NR 151 was an essential starting point or minimum level of technology that would need to be applied to achieve water quality standards. 2.4 Pathway Decision

Based on the results of the WQI planning project, the MMSDs technical team thought that there was a possibility that the outcome of the third party TMDL may result in a different technology plan and a different water quality improvement than the NR 151 performance standards. The technical team understood the WDNRs assertion that the TMDL could result in additional requirements over and above NR 151. The technical team suggested using scientific analysis to contribute to a bottom up approach. The technical team based its idea on the analysis of existing water quality data in the watersheds studied in the WQI. Also, the detailed water quality models developed during the WQI planning project were used to assess the impact of NR 151 on water quality. Two model runs were developed with identical assumptions except one model run assumed full implementation (urban measures only) of NR151, and the second run assumed no implementation of NR 151. A further concern existed with regard to the lack of a water quality standard for TSS in Wisconsin. The closest proxy that can be found is the United States Geological Service (USGS) reference concentration for TSS. This estimate was used by the WDNR as the basis for TSS TMDLs in other parts of the state. The reference concentration for TSS, based upon the USGS analysis of watersheds in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, was expressed as a median concentration of 17.2 mg/l 3. The existing model run, as summarized in the RWQMPU SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, showed the following with regard to the existing condition model output 4: The RWQMPU assessment model looked at 18 assessment points in the Menomonee River watershed. None of the assessment points had median TSS concentrations that exceeded the USGS reference concentration TSS level of 17.2 mg/l. The average of all the medians was 6.9 mg/l TSS with a range of median values of 4.6 to 11.2 mg/l TSS. The means averaged 14.5 mg/l TSS with a range of 7.9 to 24.7 mg/l TSS. One significant result of these water quality model runs was that the TSS concentrations in the Menomonee River watershed under existing (year 2000) conditions were below the USGS reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l TSS as a median value. Appendix N of the RWQMPU also shows other water quality parameters studied, as well as the RWQMPU revised year 2020 baseline, the revised baseline with the MMSD action of a five-year level of protection (LOP) for SSO, and the two RWQMPU plans one, the recommended plan and the other, the extreme measures condition. This analysis shows that even with the extreme measures condition (implementation of many water quality improvement actions above and beyond NR 151 requirements), the concentration of TSS is not materially changed.

USGS. Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent Areas, Scientific Investigations Report 20065066, 2006 4 Appendix N, Water Quality Summary Statistics for the Recommended Plan Tables

2-7

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

The data on the existing water quality runs as well as the revised 2020 baseline with and without NR 151 are shown in Appendix 2B. The model runs shown are only for the MMSD assessment points, which are a subset of the RWQMPU assessment points and consist of five assessment points in the Menomonee River. Table 2-1 shows the results of the model run "with" NR 151 and "without" NR 151: Table 2-1 Impact of NR 151 on Modeled TSS for the Menomonee River
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Watershe d Assessment Location Measure
Median Menomonee River Mean RI-16 TSS Guidline Median Menomonee River Mean RI-21 TSS Guidline Median Menomonee River Mean RI-22 TSS Guidline Median Menomonee River Mean RI-09 TSS Guidline Median Menomonee River Mean RI-10 TSS Guidline

Units / Criteria
mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L)

No NR 151

Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

5.8 9.9 361 5.1 12.9 353 4.4 10.9 356 4.9 13.2 351 4.8 13.1 351

Difference

NR 151 Impact

6.0 10.1 360 5.8 14.2 351 5.1 12.1 355 5.8 14.3 350 5.5 14.2 350

-0.2 -0.3 1 -0.7 -1.3 2 -0.7 -1.2 1 -0.8 -1.1 1 -0.7 -1.1 1

-2.8% -2.6% 0.2% -11.7% -9.1% 0.6% -13.6% -9.8% 0.4% -14.7% -8.0% 0.4% -12.7% -7.5% 0.3%

Notes: 1) 2) The no NR 151 data column is the revised baseline without simulated NR 151 impact, while the next column revised baseline is the same condition with NR 151 simulated impact. In both tables, a TSS guideline is shown. This was developed in the WQI as a measure to assess how many days the watersheds met the guideline to allow for comparison of alternatives since no TSS water quality standard exists.

1) The data show that NR 151 does improve TSS concentrations in a range from about 2% to 15% in the Menomonee River watershed, but the median TSS concentrations are already well below the reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l. 2) The impact of NR 151 on fecal coliform levels, as shown in Appendix 2B data, is insignificant as the improvement in the percent of time the standard is met in the typical year is no greater than 1% at any of the assessment points in the Menomonee River watershed. The most frequently exceeded water quality parameter analyzed for the WQI in the GMW was compliance with the existing fecal coliform water quality standards. Thus, based upon the data produced in the RWQMPU, the imposition of NR 151 will have essentially no impact on fecal coliform compliance.

2-8

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Given this complex situation, including the fact that the WDNR was in the process of evaluating the NR 151 rule, and that the timetable for implementation of the rule may be lengthened, the MMSD and the technical team decided to pursue a different path for the development of the detailed implementation plan for the WQI. This path, illustrated in Figure 2-3, was to develop a WRP instead of a third party TMDL. This effort will be based upon the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. 5 The effort mirrors the TMDL concept, but will not result in an actual TMDL or have the regulatory impact of a TMDL. This effort began in July of 2008. The MMSD chose this route for the following reasons:

The steps are basically the same whether doing a TMDL or a Section 319 program (USEPA 319 Plan). Many grant programs exist to facilitate the development of a USEPA 319 Plan. The USEPA 319 Plan produces estimates of load reductions and end points similar to what a TMDL would produce The work product of the USEPA 319 Plan can eventually be revised and used as the basis for a TMDL These plans do not have the regulatory impact of a TMDL, thus they offer different pathways to get to watershed permits, trading, etc. Finally, as shown in Figure 2-3, the WDNR has developed an innovative approach to watershed planning that does not require a TMDL. This approach results in Environmental Accountability Plans (EAPs). The WDNR and USEPA Region 5 have developed this approach, which avoids the need for a TMDL and the listing of stream segments on the state 303(d) list and affords the ability to use the EAP as the route to a watershed permit and eventually watershed-based trading.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA, 2005

2-9

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

SWWT

Figure 2-3: Framework For The Watershed Restoration Plan The development of a WRP that is based on the USEPA 319 Plan has the benefit of allowing the Plan to focus on bottom up planning while incorporating the water quality improvement benefits of a top down plan. In other words, the development of this type of WRP will utilize water quality data and science to specifically target the water quality-based needs of the Menomonee River Watershed, but will also incorporate the impacts of the top down implementation of uniform technology programs such as the NR 151 rule. This type of plan not only realizes the water quality benefits of both type of planning approaches and it addresses the concerns of a wide range of stakeholders including communities, citizen groups, WDNR, USEPA and the MMSD. 2.5 2.5.1 Development of the Watershed Restoration Plan Overview

The WRP represents the next step in the implementation of a science-based watershed improvement effort. This work effort will produce an adaptive, phased WRP for the Menomonee River Watershed. The WRP will contain the following:

An implementation plan focused on activities that should take place in the near term to meet long-term water quality goals.

2-10

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

A collaborative stakeholder involvement effort that will be based upon interaction with a newly formed partnership called the SWWT. This partnership is a voluntary, non-taxing partnership of independent units of government, special purpose districts, agencies, organizations and members at large that share common goals. These entities have agreed to work collaboratively to achieve healthy and sustainable water resources throughout the GMW. Potential additional targeted efforts on green infrastructure, pollutant trading, and social science measures will be considered in conjunction with the tenets of social, economic and environmental sustainability.

This effort builds upon the sound science, extensive data and alternatives analysis of the WQI. Important issues to be addressed during the development of the WRP will be how to best integrate other ongoing watershed management efforts (e.g., recommendations in the RWQMPU and the MMSD 2020 FP, various nonpoint water quality improvements as a result of USEPAs Phase II stormwater requirements, and the impact of NR 151) with this effort. The technical team expects that an approach that incorporates phases and interim milestones will be recommended in the final WRP to address incremental progress toward achieving water quality standards and consistency with the related ongoing projects. An illustration of a potential phasing strategy for implementation of the WRP could be as follows:

Phase 1: The first phase of the WRP could include a recommendation to implement already committed projects and programs. As such, the technical analysis underpinning the WRP will start with the existing year 2000 WQI water quality model and add in all the committed projects as of January 1, 2008 using the same approach taken for the WQI. Other known water quality improvement projects that have been finished since the completion of the WQI would also be factored into the analysis. Various pilot projects could then be carried out during Phase 1 implementation activities to address certain key issues (e.g., determine full extent of failing sanitary infrastructure and illicit discharges, implement and evaluate additional green infrastructure projects, and identify and test various agricultural BMPs). This phase could represent progress in the years 2010 to about 2015. Phase 2: The second phase of the WRP adaptive implementation could include the consideration of watershed permits and/or water quality trading, based upon the WRP or using the EAP concept. This phase could represent progress in the years 2013 to about 2018. Phase 3: The third phase of the WRP adaptive implementation could consist of an enhanced level of controls to further improve water quality and would likely include most of the same elements contained in the RWQMPU recommended alternative. An emphasis would be placed on the controls determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during Phase 1. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase could represent progress in the years 2016 to about 2020. Phase 4: The final phase of this effort could be the adoption of all controls necessary to fully meet achievable water quality standards, whether those are the existing standards,

2-11

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

site-specific standards or future changes in water quality standards. This phase could occur after 2020. 2.5.2 Detailed Tasks The tasks listed below are intended to serve as the technical basis for developing a WRP to meet water quality standards and protect water resources in the Menomonee River watershed. The tasks are organized according to the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. 1) Identify causes of impairment and pollutant sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. This information will be used to develop conceptual plans for the WRP. 2) Estimate the load reductions expected from management measures. 3) Describe the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions, including a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed. 4) Estimate the amount of needed technical and financial assistance, the associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the Plan. 5) Develop an information and education component to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage early and continued participation. 6) Develop a schedule for implementing the identified management measures. 7) Describe interim measurable milestones for determining whether the management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 8) Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards. 9) Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time. To support development of the WRP, the innovative watershed planning effort will include the following:

A series of workshops with various local organizations to obtain their input on the scope of the WRP effort (to finalize the pollutants to be assessed and to confirm the water quality targets to be used for pollutants without numeric criteria). A series of technical meetings with representatives of the WDNR and USEPA to obtain their concurrence with the scope of the WRP effort. Some negotiation is assumed in this process between the local organizations and the regulatory agencies until collaborative consensus is reached. An adaptive management and adaptive implementation approach that will allow proposed controls to be implemented, monitored, refined and revisited so that effective implementation of the WRP can be achieved.

2-12

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Technologies consisting of facilities, programs, operational improvements and policies (FPOPs) that will be prioritized and organized by sub-watershed. Prioritization will be based on a cost/benefit approach where costs reflect capital and operational expenditures and benefits reflect the expected reductions in pollutant loadings and progress toward attaining water quality standards. An implementation plan that will include guidance regarding the use of green infrastructure (through pilot projects), social science tools (to obtain agricultural and non-agricultural citizen input), potential watershed permitting options, and identification of opportunities for trading among the various stakeholders in the watershed(s). Summary

2.6

Plans to improve water quality in the GMW include nonpoint source controls and managing polluted stormwater runoff. Efforts build upon initiatives over the past 30 years that were directed primarily at controlling point source pollution through the implementation of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program and MMSDs Overflow Reduction Plan, which will be completed by 2010. The WRP will be a bottom-up approach, including the regulatory actions required under NR 151 and recognizing the importance of addressing many potential nonpoint pollution sources and working across political or jurisdictional lines. The desired result is to develop actions that will improve water quality in the most cost effective way. It is anticipated that all regulatory and technical issues will be resolved over time through the collaborative efforts of all parties involved in the Menomonee River watershed restoration planning effort.

2-13

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

APPENDIX 2A INTEGRATED WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING MEETING AGENDA

2-14

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-15

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-16

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

2-17

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

APPENDIX 2B WATER QUALITY DATA EXISTING 2000 AND REVISED 2020 BASELINE WITH AND WITHOUT NR 151

2-18

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Fecal Coliform Watershed Assessment Location

Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Geometric Mean Standard Not to Exceed Standard Not to Exceed Standard Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (swimming season) Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season) Menomonee River Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season) RI-16 Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season) Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Geometric Mean Standard Not to Exceed Standard Not to Exceed Standard Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (Swimming season) Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season) Menomonee River Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season) RI-21 Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season)

No NR 151 Measure Units / Criteria

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

Revised Baseline (With NR 151) 234 1,649 111 185 207 65% 117 995 53 116 107 79% 477 2,739 355 83 170 56% 212 1,451 89 61 98 74%

Difference

NR 151 Impact

231 1,627 110 187 208 66% 114 966 53 118 109 81% 510 2,860 355 70 170 56% 229 1,500 101 50 99 75%

3 23 1 -2 -1 -1% 3 29 0 -2 -2 -1% -33 -121 0 13 0 0% -17 -49 -12 11 -1 0

1.2% 1.4% 1.3% -1.2% -0.6% 2.7% 3.0% 0.0% -2.0% -1.6% -6.4% -4.2% -0.1% 19.1% -0.2% -7.5% -3.3% -11.9% 22.1% -1.0%

2-19

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Fecal Coliform Watershed Assessment Location

Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Geometric Mean Standard Not to Exceed Standard Not to Exceed Standard Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (swimming season) Geometric Mean Standard (Swimming season) Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season) RI-22 Not to Exceed Standard (Swimming season) Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (swimming season) Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (Swimming season) Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) RI-10 Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season)

No NR 151 Measure Units / Criteria

Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (200 counts / 100 ml) Days met (400 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (200 counts / 100 ml) Days met (400 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml) Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml) Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml) Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Counts / 100 ml Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml) Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml) % of time standard is met

Menomonee River

Menomonee River

RI-09

Menomonee River

791 4,178 646 33 148 49% 334 1,998 175 23 90 69% 1,064 6,119 987 200 183 62% 455 3,129 191 135 103 81% 1,033 6,148 962 203 184 63% 437 3,133 179 136 104 81%

Revised Baseline (With NR 151) 731 3,947 616 39 150 50% 308 1,928 163 27 90 69% 981 5,903 970 207 184 63% 415 3,064 172 138 104 81% 955 5,945 946 209 185 63% 399 3,073 162 138 105 81%

Difference

NR 151 Impact

-60 -232 -30 6 2 1% -26 -70 -12 4 0 0% -83 -216 -17 7 1 0% -40 -65 -19 3 1 0% -78 -204 -16 6 0 0% -38 -60 -17 2 0 0%

-7.6% -5.5% -4.7% 17.2% 1.5% -7.7% -3.5% -7.0% 18.8% 0.4% -7.8% -3.5% -1.7% 3.6% 0.8% -8.8% -2.1% -9.8% 2.4% 0.8% -7.6% -3.3% -1.7% 3.2% 0.1% -8.6% -1.9% -9.6% 1.6% 0.1%

2-20

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Watershed Assessment Location

Median Mean Menomonee River RI-16 Dissolved Oxygen Standard Dissolved Oxygen Standard Median Mean Dissolved Oxygen Standard Dissolved Oxygen Standard Median Mean Dissolved Oxygen Standard Dissolved Oxygen Standard Median Mean Variance standard Variance standard Median Mean Variance standard Variance standard

No NR 151 Measure
mg / L mg / L Days met (5 mg/L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days met (5 mg/L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days met (5 mg/L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days met (2 mg/L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days met (2 mg/L) % of time standard is met

Units / Criteria
10.7 10.5 351 99% 11.0 10.8 355 99% 10.9 10.7 353 99% 11.0 10.9 365 100% 10.9 10.9 365 100% No NR 151

Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

10.7 10.5 351 99% 11.0 10.8 356 99% 10.9 10.7 354 99% 11.0 10.9 365 100% 10.9 10.9 365 100% Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

0.0 0.0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0 0% Difference

-0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Menomonee River

RI-21

Menomonee River

RI-22

Menomonee River

RI-09

Menomonee River

RI-10
Assessment Location

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Watershed Measure Units / Criteria mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) NR 151 Impact

Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River

RI-16

RI-21

RI-22

RI-09

RI-10

Median Mean TSS Guideline Median Mean TSS Guideline Median Mean TSS Guideline Median Mean TSS Guideline Median Mean TSS Guideline

6.0 10.1 360 5.8 14.2 351 5.1 12.1 355 5.8 14.3 350 5.5 14.2 350

5.8 9.9 361 5.1 12.9 353 4.4 10.9 356 4.9 13.2 351 4.8 13.1 351

-0.2 -0.3 1 -0.7 -1.3 2 -0.7 -1.2 1 -0.8 -1.1 1 -0.7 -1.1 1

-2.8% -2.6% 0.2% -11.7% -9.1% 0.6% -13.6% -9.8% 0.4% -14.7% -8.0% 0.4% -12.7% -7.5% 0.3%

2-21

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Total Nitrogen (TN) Watershed

Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River

Assessment Location
RI-16 RI-21 RI-22 RI-09 RI-10 Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean

No NR 151 Measure Units / Criteria

mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L

Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

0.96 1.07 0.86 0.91 0.85 0.90 0.93 0.97 1.06 1.10

Difference

NR 151 Impact
-0.9% -1.4% -5.1% -4.8% -5.0% -5.1% -6.1% -5.5% -4.6% -4.8%

0.97 1.08 0.90 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.99 1.03 1.11 1.15

-0.01 -0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06

Total Phosphorus (TP) Watershed Assessment Location

Median Mean TP Planning Guideline TP Planning Guideline Median Mean TP Planning Guideline TP Planning Guideline Median Mean TP Planning Guideline TP Planning Guideline Median Mean TP Planning Guideline TP Planning Guideline Median Mean TP Planning Guideline TP Planning Guideline

No NR 151
Measure

Units
mg / L mg / L Days TP met (0.1 mg / L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days TP met (0.1 mg / L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days TP met (0.1 mg / L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days TP met (0.1 mg / L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days TP met (0.1 mg / L) % of time standard is met

Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

0.066 0.105 239 68% 0.064 0.101 235 67% 0.063 0.098 241 69% 0.076 0.107 228 66% 0.105 0.129 172 51%

Difference

NR 151 Impact
-0.7% -0.7% 0.2% -2.4% -3.2% 1.8% -2.8% -3.4% 1.4% -3.2% -3.5% 2.1% -2.5% -2.9% 3.0%

Menomonee River

RI-16

Menomonee River

RI-21

Menomonee River

RI-22

Menomonee River

RI-09

Menomonee River

RI-10

0.067 0.105 238 68% 0.065 0.104 231 66% 0.065 0.102 238 68% 0.078 0.110 224 65% 0.107 0.133 167 50%

0.000 -0.001 0 0% -0.002 -0.003 4 1% -0.002 -0.003 3 1% -0.003 -0.004 5 1% -0.003 -0.004 5 1%

2-22

Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan

Menomonee River

Watershed

Assessment Location Median RI-16 Mean Median

No NR 151 Measure mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L Units 0.0017 0.0043 0.0020 0.0052 0.0022 0.0052 0.0025 0.0054 0.0024 0.0052

Revised Baseline (With NR 151)

Difference

NR 151 Impact

Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River Menomonee River

0.0016 0.0043 0.0019 0.0048 0.0020 0.0048 0.0022 0.0050 0.0022 0.0049

0.0000 -0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0004

-2.1% -1.2% -7.4% -6.6% -8.9% -7.2% -10.0% -6.9% -9.4% -6.8%

RI-21

Mean Median

RI-22

Mean Median

RI-09

Mean Median

RI-10

Mean

2-23