KKCh4 AppendixA 120809

8/2/2019 KKCh4 AppendixA 120809

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kkch4-appendixa-120809 1/62

APPENDIX 4A





aquatic c ommunity and habitat quality; i dentifies information needs; provides recommendedand ac tions to ad dress t he i mpairments; r ecommended p rioritization st rategy t o m axi

effectiveness; and post-project monitoring recommendations to assess project success.

INTRODUCTION

The water-resource and water-resource-related problems of a watershed, as well as the ultimat problems, are a function of the human activities within the watershed and of the ability of theresource base to sustain those activities. Regional water quality management planning seeks

the future course of human actions within the watershed so as to promote the conservation anatural resource base. Accordingly, two recently completed and separate regional planning doc

PR-502

have thoroughly described both the natural resource base and the man-made features

River an d K innickinnic R iver w atersheds, t hereby est ablishing a f actual b ase upon w hichwatershed p lanning pr ocess c ould pr oceed. F or a m ore thorough de scription o f t he naturafeatures of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, the reader is referred t

Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission website (www.sewrpc.org).

The following sect ions p resent an i nventory an d a nalysis o f t he su rface w aters an d r elatMenomonee R iver a nd K innickinnic R iver w atersheds. I ncluded i s descriptive i nformationhistorical t rends and current status of h abitat (physical and b iological) quality and ecologica

Menomonee a nd K innickinnic R ivers, b ank a nd be d s tability a nalysis, r iparian buf fer anal

limitations to water quality and fishery resources.

Stream System CharacteristicsWater f rom rainfall and s nowmelt f lows i nto stream systems by one of t wo pathways; e ith

overland as s urface w ater r unoff into s treams or infiltrating i nto t he s oil s urface a nd eunderground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally flow only during the wrainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called perennial streams and are primgroundwater during dry periods. The surface water drainage systems contain about 142 and 31

and ephemeral streams within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, respon Maps 1A and 1B. It is also important to note that Maps 1A and 1B show the assessment pothe Menomonee R iver an d Kinnickinnic R iver watersheds. The reaches for the Menomonee

MN-1 through MN-19 and from KK-1 through KK-11 within the Kinnickinnic River watershand 1B). These reaches form the basis for summary statistics and recommendations in this repo

Viewed from above, the network of water channels that form a river system typically displays aas shown in Figure 7. A stream channel that flows into a larger channel is called a tributary of

entire a rea d rained b y a si ngle r iver system i s t ermed a d rainage basin, o r w atershed. S tr

downstream as more and more tributary segments enter the main channel. A classification sy position of a stream within the network of tributaries, called stream order, was developed by Ro

later m odified by A rthur Strahler. I n general, the lower s tream or der num bers c orresponheadwater tributaries and are shown as the Order 1 or first-order streams in Figure 7. Second-or

2) are those that have only first-order streams as tributaries, and so on (Figure 7). As water travstreams toward the mouth of l arger rivers, streams gradually increase their width and depth



To better understand stream systems and what shapes their conditions, it is important to under both spatial and temporal scales. Streams can be theoretically subdivided into a continuum of h

disturbance and recovery time as shown in Figure 8. 3 Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized p

most su sceptible to d isturbance and river sy stems and watersheds, or drainage basins, the l

events that affect smaller-scale habitat characteristics may not affect larger-scale system charalarge disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. For example, on a

deposition at one habitat site may be a ccompanied by scouring at another site nearby, and thdoes not appear to change significantly. In contrast, a large-scale disturbance, such as a debris f

the segment level and reflected in all lower levels of the hierarchy (reach, habitat, microhabittemporal scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short terdisturbance is of l imited scope and intensity, the system may recover qui ckly to pr e-distu

contrast, ex tensive o r prolonged d isturbances, su ch as st ream channelization d ue to d itching

practices, have resulted in longer term impacts throughout the study area.

The most important fundamental aspects of stream systems are that 1) the entire fluvial systemintegrated se ries of physical g radients i n which t he downstream ar eas are l ongitudinally linupon t he u pstream ar eas; and 2 ) that s treams ar e intimately co nnected to t heir ad jacent te

otherwords t he l and-stream i nteraction i s cr ucial t o t he operation o f s tream eco system pconnectivity does not diminish in importance with stream size. In this regard, land uses have aon stream channel conditions and associated biological responses.5

_____________ 3 C.A. Frissell and others, “A Hierarchical Framework for Stream Classification: View

Watershed Context,” Journal of Environmental Management , Volume 10, pages 199-214, 1986

4 G.J. Niemi and others, “An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems Fr

J l f E i l M V l 14 571 587 1990



Urban Development, Imperviousness, and HydrologyThe Kinnickinnic R iver w atershed i s n early entirely bui lt ou t and ur ban land u se i n t he watershed is expected to increase between the present and 2035. In the absence of planning, succreate negative impacts on streams. Urbanization itself is not the main factor driving the degra

waterbodies. Streams can su rvive and f lourish in u rban settings. The main factors leading to urban w aterbodies a re the cr eation o f large areas of co nnected i mpervious surfaces, thestormwater management f acilities t o control t he quantity a nd qua lity of r unoff, pr oximity

waterbodies, loss of na tural a reas, a nd inadequate construction e rosion c ontrols. These fa potential for the occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity effects associated with urban

use planning, creative site design and the application of best management practices for constrcontrol and post-construction stormwater management can greatly reduce the potential for urbnegatively affect the surrounding environment.

Industrial an d co mmercial l and u ses h ave si gnificantly more i mpervious ar ea than resi

Furthermore, smaller residential lots create more impervious surfaces than larger residential lo

approximate amount of impervious surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial, andinstitutional development.

Although commercial a nd indust

create a larger p ercentage o f i mresidential developments, where l a

largest use of land area, present dLawns are considered pervious,

some similarities to impervious sur

are compared t o w oodlands a nd found to contain less soil pore spac

less than cropland and 24 percent leavailable f or t he i nfiltration o f

instances, considerable soil compacgrading activities, significantly

Table 2

APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OFCONNECTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACESCREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Type of Urban DevelopmentImpervious Surface

(percent)

Two-Acre Residential .......................... 10-15One-Acre Residential .......................... 15-25One-Half-Acre Residential ................... 20-30One-Third-Acre Residential ................. 25-35One-Fourth-Acre Residential ............... 35-45One-Eighth-Acre Residential ............... 60-70Industrial ............................................. 70-80Commercial ......................................... 85-95



owing t o excessive a pplication of f ertilizers and pesticides on ur ban lawns, they t ypically ploads of nutrients and pesticide than does cropland.6

When a new commercial or residential develo

a stream, the area in d riveways, rooftops, sidincreases; while native plants and undisturbed

the ability of the shoreland area to perform i t(flood c ontrol, pollutant r emoval, wildlife ha

beauty) i s d ecreased. I n t he ab sence o f m iurbanization impacts the watershed, not only b

between s tormwater runoff a nd g roundwater

through the changing of stream hydrology (i.e

water runoff volumes a nd pe ak flows and a ltregime) and through d ivergence of t he seasonaway f rom th eir h istorical p atterns (see F i

changes further influence other characteristics as c hannel m orphology, water qua lity/quantdiversity. More sp ecifically, r ecent r esearchaverage flow magnitude, high-flow magnitudfrequency, high-flow duration and rate of chan

sectional area w ere the h ydrological variables

associated w ith changes i n a lgal, i nvercommunities.7 When u rban d evelopment increases, t he am ount o f su rfaces impervious t

proportionately t o the d ecrease in t he amount of surfaces pe rvious to w ater. F or this r eresearchers throughout the United States, including researchers at the WDNR, report that the amimpervious su rfaces i s t he b est i ndicator o f t he l evel of u rbanization i n a w atershed.8 Con

surfaces have a direct hydraulic connection to a stormwater drainage system, and, ultimatelystudies m entioned a bove ha ve found t hat relatively l ow l evels of u rbanization, 8 t o 12

impervious su rface, can cause su btle ch anges i n physical ( increased temperature an d turbid

properties (reduced dissolved oxygen and increased pollutant levels) of a stream that may lead biological components of the stream. For example, each 1 percent increase in watershed imper

to an i ncrease i n w ater temperature o f ab out 0 .25 d egrees C elsius.9

This temperature i n

magnitude, but even this small increase can have significant impacts to fish and other membercommunity.

In t he ab sence of m itigating measures, one o f the c onsequences o f u rban development i s tamount of s tormwater, w hich runs off t he l and, instead o f i nfiltrating i nto the g roundwater

driveway produces much more runoff than an undisturbed meadow or agricultural hay f ield.

degree of w atershed impervious cover, the annual volume of s torm water runoff can increase

_____________ 6Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts o f I mpervious C over on A quatic Systems, Wa

h h 1 h 2003 7



that for natural areas.10 In addition, since impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating

flow is available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfaare o ften reduced i n u rban st reams.11 This h as be en obs erved t o oc cur i n bot h t he M en

Kinnickinnic River w atersheds, w hich l imits r ecreational o pportunities such a s canoeing. F

traveling over a parking lot or driveway will pick up more heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens pollutants than r unoff t raveling over s urfaces t hat allow some of t he s tormwater t o be f ilteRunoff traveling over impervious surfaces bypasses the f iltering action of the soil particles,

vegetation present above (stems and leaves) and below (roots) the soil surface. For example, a __ and __ MMSD observed total phosphorus and total suspended solids concentrations downoutfalls in the g reater Milwaukee River w atersheds were significantly higher during the ini

rainfall event compared to later samples. These Figures illustrate two important observations pollutant c oncentrations for Combined S ewer O verflows (CSOs) has improved s ignificantly

tunnel c onditions a nd 2) despite improvements i n water qu ality a ssociated w ith t he de ep pollutant concentrations associated with the initial first flush and later time periods are equiva

cases exceed pollutant concentrations in b oth CSOs and Sanitary Sewer Outfalls (SSOs). Inshows how observed and predicted chloride concentrations at 70th Street and State Street in thefluctuate in r esponse t o r ainfall ev ents an d s easons. The p redicted c hloride concentration

associated t otal co nductivity measurements. These figures i llustrate t he c onnection or s yne between st ream flashiness ( water q uantity) an d pollutant l oadings (water q uality) as sostormwater runoff. It i s clear that this location is impacted by chlorides for extended periods(Dec-Mar). There are both e pisodic periods of a cute t oxicity a nd e xtended pe riods o f chro

location during the winter. Additionally this location’s fish index of biotic integrity score is “veof factors are l ikely contributing to th is result, w ith chloride concentrations being one of t hrelatively new real-time information it is becoming clear that chloride impacts are not short litoxicity impacts can last most of the winter depending on snow fall and weather. This same likely to be the case for the Kinnickinnic River as well.12 For example, researchers found tha

imperviousness within the Honey Creek and Kinnickinnic River watersheds was strongly assoamounts of nonpoint source pollutants that significantly affecting fathead minnow reproducti

_____________ 10 Schueler, T., “The importance of imperviousness,” Watershed Protection Techniques , Volu

1995.

most striking results in this study showed decreased sexual development in males, reduced av

females, and reduced number of breeding pairs.





Location of these impervious surfaces also determines the degree of direct impact they will hThere is a g reater impact from impervious surfaces located closer to a s tream, due to the fac

distance exists where the polluted runoff can be naturally treated before entering into the strewatersheds in southeastern Wisconsin found that one acre of impervious surface located near a

the same negative effect on aquatic communities as 10 acres of impervious surface located furstream.14

Because urban lands located adjacent to the stream have a greater impact on the biol

an assumption might be made that riparian buffer strips located along the stream could absorb effects attributed to urbanization. Yet, riparian buffers may not be the complete answer in th

most urban stormwater is delivered directly to the stream via a storm sewer or engineered chanenters the s tream w ithout first be ing f iltered by t he buffer. R iparian bu ffers need to be c omanagement practices, such as i nfiltration facilities, detention basins, and grass swales, in o

mitigate the effects of urban stormwater runoff. Combining practices into such a “treatment tr

much higher l evel of pollutant removal, than single, stand-alone practices could ever ac hieverosion treatment practices vary in their function, which in turn influences their level of effectia practice on the landscape, as well as proper construction and continued maintenance, greatly i

of pollutant removal.

What is habitat?Aquatic species abundance and distribution can be affected by a number of both biotic (predand abiotic factors within stream systems. The biotic factors, as noted above, are beyond the s

and a re not considered further i n t his document. T he ab iotic f actors affecting aquatic co

macroinvertebrates, a lgae) can co llectively be called h abitat. Conversely, bi ological c ommsurrogate for habitat quality, for example high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly asquality habitat. Therefore, habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physhydrological v ariables ( Fitzpatrick et al. 1998, L yons 199 4). I t i s important t o not e that

intimately r elated t o land use w ithin a watershed as w ell as to land us e di rectly ad jacent tConsequently, watershed size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffeelements necessary in defining habitat quality.

In addition, urbanization increases impervious surface, which can lead to an increase in “flashinwhich flow responds to a precipitation event) that subsequently affects streambank stability, s pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics, which, in turn, affect habitat availability and quaTR-39 the Menomonee River watershed contains approximately 20 percent imperviousness anRiver contains about 30 to 40 percent imperviousness based upon the amount of urban land d2000. Therefore, the hydrology o f the urban st ream systems within both watersheds is a ma

stream dynamics and is a vital component of habitat for fishes and other organisms (see Figure



Based upon this information and for purposes of this report, habitat has been divided into twothat distinguish Land Based versus Instream dimensions of habitat. The land based elements infeatures that i nclude existing a nd planned land use, historic urban growth, stormwater runofcivil divisions, among others. However, this report will be focused on riparian buffer width and

as plant community quality, and groundwater recharge potential within the Menomonee RiveRiver watersheds. Instream measures addressed in this report include channelization, steamb

stability, channel obstructions, habitat quality, fishery quality, and macroinvertebrate quality.

INVENTORY FINDINGS



collected with mini-boom shocking gear within the downstream reaches of the Menomonee Rshipping canals. These data were used for species presence or absence information only.

Historical Conditions

Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary Area including the Milwaukee, MenomoneeRivers ha s b een substantially c hannelized, relocated, dr edged, f illed, and dammed t o c onvwetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists. 15 This conv

the d evelopment a nd g rowth o f the G reater M ilwaukee M etropolitan A rea th at c urrent

conversion has lead to significant environmental degradation in w ater quality, fisheries, and

Further comparison of the earliest known survey of the entire Menomonee River and Kinnicki

completed in 1836 t o the present channel conditions in 2005 a lso shows evidence of s ignificand diversion of stream channels over this time period (see Maps __ and __).

Straightening meandering stream channels or “channelization” was once a widely used and accagricultural management. T he National R esources C onservation S ervice ( NRCS) ( former lyService) co st sh ared s uch activities up to the e arly 1970s w ithin southeastern W isconsin.17

channelization were to reduce floods by conveying stormwater runoff more rapidly, to facilitalying agricultural land, and to allow more efficient farming in rectangular fields. Through chan

attempted t o pr otect their crops by i ncreasing t he velocity of w ater moving downstream a ndwater d rained away f rom their land. However, channelization rarely succeeds in increasing moving downstream for two main reasons; 1) waterways throughout the Southeastern Wisc

have low slopes (i.e. slopes less than one percent), and 2) the effective slope within a reach thagenerally n ot ch anged, b ecause slope w ithin the ch annelized sec tion i s limited b y the st reaflatter, downstream reaches. These two factors combined with the fact that channelized reachetoo de ep and too w ide, produce a reas that are ch aracterized b y sl ow m oving, st agnant channelized reaches become long st raight pools or areas of s ediment deposition. Because th

these reaches are too low to carry suspended materials, sediment particles settle out and accummany channelized reaches contain uniformly deep flocculent organic sediments. Channelizatiinstream hydraulic c hanges that can decrease o r interfere w ith surface water c ontact to ove

floods. This may result in reduced filtering of nonpoint source pollutants by riparian area vegwell as increased erosion of the banks. Channelization can lead to increased water temperature

riparian vegetation, and it c an alter instream sedimentation rates and paths o f sediment erosdeposition. Therefore, c hannelization a ctivities, a s t raditionally a ccomplished w ithout mgenerally lead to a diminished suitability of instream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife.

Historically, hydrology has been the sole focus of stormwater management efforts in the urban

to channelization (both ditching and straightening), placement of concrete (both as a flow chaand as f low controls as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed channel), and rem

from c hannels t o pr omote r ate of flow, w ithout c onsideration o f ha bitat i mpacts in porMenomonee River a nd Kinnickinnic R iver watersheds. These concrete lined s tream segmen

damaging, due to the creation of conditions that fragment and limit linear and lateral connectivand their corridor habitat and ecosystem; limit or prevent fish and wildlife movement; increase destroy fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat; limit recreational use including those attendant to and aesthetics; and may actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. Today, recognit



recreate naturalized river systems that meet not only flood control requirements but also incomaintenance of aquatic life objectives.

Current Conditions

Kinnickinnic RiverThe Kinnickinnic River system is comprised of about 30 percent concrete lining and 30 percenand most of the remaining open s tream channel is unstable and e roding (Table _ and Map _

assessment report indicated that the upper unchannelized sections of the Kinnickinnic River a(downcut or eroded streambed) and laterally unstable. Compar ison of historic longitudinal proup to four to five feet of incision has occurred since the 1970s.18 This channel instability is duof e lements t hat i nclude; a hi gh a mount of ur ban de velopment a nd a ssociated i mperviou

network designed to move runoff quickly and efficiently off the land surface; significant encr

development t o the s tream, w hich c onfines flows w ithin a na rrow a rea and e xposing t hstreambed to extremely high velocities and shear stress; and steep slopes. This is consistent wwithin the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian buffers less than 75 feet in width (Tabl

Table _ shows that more than 70 percent of the river corridors within the Kinnickinnic River buffers with less than 75 feet in width. The Upper and Middle subwatersheds of the KinnickKK-10) contain the most highly buffered stream reaches with about 27 a nd 23 percent of the

greater than 75 feet in width, respectively. These areas are associated with park systemKinnickinnic River also co ntains two of the six to tal highest q uality v egetation c ommun

watershed based upon t heir F loristic Q uality I ndex ( FQI),19

The Lower Wi lson P ark Cree

Avenue Creek ( KK-5), and L yons P ark C reek ( KK-1) s ubwatersheds also c ontain importanareas with fair to good quality, which serve as extremely important wildlife refuge areas withinlandscape.

Stream widths in the Kinnickinnic River were shown to range from 42 to 74 feet based upon Stream widths in the remaining subwatersheds generally ranged from about 10 to 30 f eet in

throughout the Kinnickinnic River watershed were dominated by gravels and course sands. Th

sizes are consistent with high velocity flows that occur throughout this watershed. However,

physical information exists within this watershed.

As previously summarized within TR-39 there are a total of 61 po int sources identified withiRiver w atershed th at include n oncontact cooling w ater p ermits, in dividual p ermits, C SO

outfalls. As shown in Table __ t hese are generally predominantly physically located within thKinnickinnic River reaches KK-3, KK-10, and K K-11 of t he watershed. There are an estimaoutfalls found w ithin t his w atershed, w hich c omprises a bout 50 pe rcent of t he t otal out f

stormwater out falls a re no t concentrated in a ny pa rticular a rea, b ut a re found throughout thindicates that t hese o utfalls a re far m ore numerous than a ny ot her type of ou tfall and t ha

distributed throughout the watershed. In addition, since these stormwater outfalls discharge w

_____________ 18 Milwaukee County, Milwaukee C ounty S tream A ssessment , Final Report, completed by

September, 2004.

19N h h i i i di i f l i li d h f



event as opposed to a few events a year like CSOs, their potential for water quality impacts is faThe phy sical outfall pipes t hemselves c an potentially create s ignificant localized er osion to

banks, especially if they are constructed at poor angles. These outfalls can be retrofitted by chinstalling deflectors, or shortening pipes, among others. It is also important to note that these ou

opportunities for innovative infiltration practices as well as protecting streambed and streambFor example, F igure _ a nd _ s hows two out falls where i nfiltration and streambank pr otectioconstructed as part of the Underwood Creek stream restoration project.

Menomonee RiverThe Menomonee R iver sy stem is comprised of about 6.3 percent c oncrete c hannel and 2.channel (Table __). The highest amounts of concrete lined channel are located within the Honand Underwood Creek (MN-14) subwatersheds. With the exception of the Lilly Creek subwateof the stream system is in open channel and largely stable, with limited localized erosional area

__. The L illy C reek su bwatershed ( MN-7) is v ery uns table a nd c omprised o f m ore t han streambanks, w hereas the remaining su bwatersheds are generally l ess than 2 0 percent. Wishave found that high quality streams should have less than 20 percent of their total stream ban

eroding.

21

This is consistent with a high amount of protection from riparian buffers greater ththroughout the Menomonee River watershed (Table __ and Map __). Table _ s hows that at more o f the river corridors am ong t he su bwatersheds w ithin t he M enomonee River ar e pro

buffers with g reater than 75 f eet in width. However, L illy C reek ( MN-7), Little Menomone

Dousman Ditch (MN-13A), Underwood Creek (MN-14), Honey Creek (MN-16), and Lower (MN-18, 19) are generally comprised with less than 30 percent riparian buffers greater than 7in some cases 0 percent. Like the Kinnickinnic River watershed these riparian areas are coupledand are often associated with high quality vegetation communities. As shown on Map _ and Ttotal significant vegetation p lant communities d istributed throughout the Menomonee River

components of P rimary E nvironmental C orridors ( PEC), n atural ar eas, an d c ritical sp eciesummarized in TR-39. T hese vegetation communities r ange i n quality from poor to excellenFloristic Quality Index (FQI),22 which is a measure of plant species diversity and native comm

In general, the highest FQI ratings are associated with the largest stands or areas and the majothe good to excellent range, but it is important to note that all of these vegetation communitieshabitat for a variety of wildlife.



Stream widths in the Menomonee River were observed to range from about 20-30 feet in widthto about 70-100 feet i n width in the downstream r eaches.23

The Menomonee River is gener

gravel and sand substrates. The Little Menomonee River is dominated by sand substrates and

20-30 feet in width. Honey Creek and Underwood Creek are both dominated by gravel substra

about 10 to 40 feet in w idth. B utler D itch r anges f rom a bout 10 -25 feet in w idth a nd i s dsubstrates in the headwaters and gravel substrates in the lower reaches.

As previously summarized within TR-39 there are a total of 153 point sources identified with

River w atershed th at include n oncontact cooling w ater p ermits, in dividual p ermits, C SO outfalls. As shown in Table __ these are generally predominantly physically located within theMenomonee River watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls found within thi

comprises about 60 pe rcent of t he total outfalls observed. T hese s tormwater outfalls are fouwatershed and much like the Kinnickinnic River there are likely to be more outfalls than identif

Biological ConditionsThe most recent biological assessment of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watestrong relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land u

median chloride c oncentrations among several watersheds throughout the greater Mi lwaukeeshow a pos itive r elation with increasing l and us e. More s pecifically, the l ess developed uMenomonee River watershed (Willow Creek, Upper Menomonee River, Little Menomonee Rwater qua lity t han a reas within the lower pa rts o f t he M enomonee R iver w atershed ( Ho

Menomonee River) a nd the Kinnickinnic R iver w atershed t hat are m ore hi ghly ur banizeimportant to note that not all water quality constituents showed the same pattern in relationshipsome showed opposite responses and some showed no patterns at all, which is similar to what TR-39. Figures __ a nd __ also show the strong negative relationship between fisheries Index(IBI) a nd H ilsenhoff B iotic I ntegrity ( HBI) quality with i ncreased l evels o f u rbanization aMilwaukee River watersheds.25

Table 3 2 s hows the h ighest q uality f ish, invertebrate, an d algae communities ar e l ocated

watersheds of the G reater Mi lwaukee A rea including the Upper M enomonee R iver.

26

Thecommunities were associated with the highest urbanized watersheds and include Honey Creek, and t he K innickinnic River. T his i s also c onsistent with observations de tailed in t he SEWR

More sp ecifically, T R-39 s ummarized t hat t he bi ological c ommunity i n bot h t he M enoKinnickinnic River watersheds is limited primarily due to 1) periodic stormwater pollutant loaincreased f lashiness); 2 ) decreased base f lows and i ncreased w ater t emperatures due t o ur

habitat l oss an d continued f ragmentation du e t o culverts, c oncrete lined c hannels, e nclostructures, and past channelization (see Channel Obstructions Section below).

Fish and invertebrate community data from 2000-2009 as shown in Table __ and Map __ genconclusions summarized above that higher quality areas are located within less developed aremore developed areas of the Menomonee River watershed. However, this recent data a lso

_____________ 23 Ibid.



multiple samples were taken there is a range in both warmwater IBI and intermittent IBI quaentire watershed. Although the intermittent IBI is not applicable within the mainstem areas o

River w atershed, i t w as used t o p rovide a n a ssessment for t he subwatershed ar eas. B asheadwater streams ar e a ssociated w ith less d iverse fish assemblage t han p erennial l arger w

systems. T herefore, an i ntermittent I BI assessment w ill generally p rovide a b etter sco re wwarmwater IBI assessment. However, although these tributaries may not necessarily be intermIntermittent IBI were used to assess whether or not these urbanized tributaries were at least fu

quality intermittent systems. The idea being that given the high potential for fragmentation ospecies ex tirpations, it i s possible t hat t hese tributaries can n ot c urrently f unction b etter t hstream system. T herefore, comparison o f th e intermittent I BI versus th e w armwater I BI qindicates that the majority of these tributaries sampled are functioning as fair and good intermalso important t o n ote that M ap __ s hows t he m aximum q uality ach ieved within ea ch su

throughout the t ime pe riod f rom 2000 t o 200 9 as well a s t he h ighest qua lity r anking a chiwarmwater IBI or i ntermittent IBI, whichever was better quality. Hence, Map __ shows thecommunity quality achievable within a particular reach a s w ell as the highest functional achievable. I n c ontrast, i nvertebrate qu ality t hroughout the M enomonee R iver w atershe

community is very consistently ranked as good. Since invertebrates tend to colonize/or re-estareach has been disturbed and begins to stabilize, this high proportion of good HBI scores is awatershed m ay b e r ecovering/improving. Invertebrates as a biotic i ndicator also t end t

relationship to habitat as compared to Fish Indices.27

This also seems to be the case given thquality ratings are more closely associated with the habitat quality ratings than the fish ratings

be a good indication that habitat and food based organisms are improving and that the fisherymore time.

Table __ also shows that habitat quality conditions are generally good to excellent within the However, there are a few tributaries where habitat was only rated as fair and in o ne case veLower Underwood C reek subwatershed. I t is important to n ote that th ese h abitat ratings subwatershed of Underwood C reek w ere c onducted pr ior t o t he c oncrete removal a nd f

restoration project were completed (see pre vs post project photos). Riparian buffer and instreasubstantially improved in this portion of Underwood Creek and associated habitat and fisheries

area is expected to improve, especially after concrete and drop structures downstream of this pHowever, it is important to note that a significant amount of concrete channel will continue to areas, which will continue to limit the potential overall fishery within the Underwood Creek

example, the very poor habitat rating within the Lower subwatershed of Underwood Creek wthe worst invertebrate rating as w ell as t he worst fish rating where several samples yielded

demonstrates that although ur ban de velopment may b e associated with bi ological degradatioconditions s uch a s c oncrete l ining c an c ause further c ollapse o f th e b iological q uality a ndultimate potential for restoration.

Channel Obstructions or fragmentationThere a re n early 100 a nd m ore t han 300 po tential c hannel obs tructions w ithin t he K inniMenomonee R iver watersheds, respectively. These structures are primarily associated with

crossings i n the f orm of c ulverts a nd bridges, but o bstructions c an a lso include c oncrete linstructures, debris jams, b eaver dams, among others. These obstructions can f orm physical a



River watersheds, but it is unknown how many of these structures are limiting fish passage. Hoof concrete lining near Miller Park (River Mile 3.62 to 4.24) and the Menomonee Falls Dam (R

two of the most significant fish passage obstructions on the Menomonee River. The Menomocomplete barrier to upstream fish passage. This particular area also contains bedrock outcrops

falls, which is likely where Menomonee Falls got i ts name. These o utcrops have p robably g passage upstream both historically and currently, so this upper reach of the Menomonee Rive been rather isolated from the downstream areas even before construction of the dam. The up

1,000 feet of the concrete lining limits passage due to supercritical flows, which has resulted combined with no resting areas that exceed the ability of most fishes to traverse. Similarly, within the lower part of the Kinnickinnic River subwatershed (KK-10) also limits fish passagelength, lack of habitat, lack of adequate water depths, high velocities, and flashiness.





Underwood Creek pre-construction photo provided by Tom Sear, SEH

Underwood Creek post-construction photo provided by Tom Sear, SEH



As summarized in TR-39apparent loss o f m ulthroughout t he M enomKinnickinnic River wate100 years. However, it i

that this l oss of spdisproportionately g reatthat are further away fwith L ake Michigan

comparison of historic current (post-2000) fish within the Kinnickinnic R

species abundance has bto be much greater in the

reach (KK-11) connectedRiver Estuary and Lcompared t o an y o th

watershed (Table _). Thi poor habitat, hydrology,

conditions c ontinue tfisheries w ithin this w aconfirms that the K

contains t he p oorest f ish, i nvertebrate, a nd a lgal communities in the Great Milwaukee A reanative fish species have been found to occur within this watershed since the year 2000 (Table _

its c onnection with the E stuary an d Great Lakes system, the l ower r each o f the K innickinn potential f or f ishery i mprovement. This information c ombined w ith r ecent completion ocontaminated sediments within the lower reaches of the Kinnickinnic River makes it much m

species utilization will increase within this lower part of the system.29 In contrast, historic fish athe lowest reach of the Menomonee River (4.24 miles) contained the fewest number of speciethe upstream areas that were comprised of more than two times as many fish species. Howeverof the Menomonee River was only recently re-connected with the Milwaukee River Estuary a

when the Falk Dam was completely removed in 2001. In addition, removal of the North Avenhabitat improvements near the dam site that were completed in 1996 on the Milwaukee River hto a si gnificant increase in abundance and diversity o f f ishes in the Milwaukee R iver, MenEstuary areas. T hese efforts combined w ith several instream r estoration en hancements as

programs have also contributed to the highest ever recorded 42 total species found within the in over 100 years of fishery surveys. Comparison of current fish assemblages among r



Existing water quality monitoring informationThere i s a high a mount of on-going s urface water monitoring within the Menomonee R ive

River watersheds as shown in Figure __ and Maps __ and __, respectively. The current distribof monitoring sites as s hown i n F igure _ _ i ncludes a variety of continuous w ater quality m

water quality instantaneous sites, water level gauges, water temperature, and precipitation gaRiver watershed currently has a total of 34 total monitoring stations and the Kinnickinnic Rivtotal of 26 stations. The majority of the water quality data is being collected by MMSD, U.S. G

and volunteers affiliated with the Milwaukee Riverkeeper’s Citizen Based Monitoring programanaged by each of the agencies in addition to publicly accessible databases including the US the MMSD Corridor Database and WDNR SWIMS and Fish and Habitat databases.

MMSD continues t o sample b i-monthly physical a nd c hemical sampling an d analysis a t 11

tributary si tes on the Menomonee River as well as 6 mainstem and 2 tributary si tes on the Kincluding i norganic, or ganic, b acteriological, a nd instantaneous w ater quality measuremcontributes f unds for the ope ration o f f low g aging s tations by t he U SGS on t he M enoKinnickinnic River and some of their associated tributaries.

The MMSD wi th US GS h ave al so est ablished six real-time w ater q uality monitoring s tatioMenomonee River Watershed and one site on the mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River (Figuresensor technology, MMSD and USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and esttime co ncentrations o f selected w ater q uality co nstituents. R eal-time sen sors at e ach locat

specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity along with stream flothese water quality constituents, regression models have been developed to estimate concentrasolids, suspended sediment, chloride, fecal coliform and E.coli under a variety of s easonal, t

conditions. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms which transmitsMMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on a r eal-time basis allows f

management decisions and provides i nformation for ci tizens t o see, i n r eal-time, water qualMenomonee River watershed.

The Milwaukee Riverkeepers staff train and manage numerous volunteers who conduct Citizenefforts i n the watershed. They c urrently h ave 7 level-1 si tes, 1 3 l evel-2 sites, a nd 15 temp

locations throughout the mainstem a nd t ributary a reas of t he Menomonee River a nd Kwatersheds.

These o n-going da ta c ollection e fforts have a nd will continue t o provide a sound basis f orcurrent and future water quality conditions and high quality data to evaluate the effectiveness

control measures, to detect new and emerging water quality problems, and to help guide decisithese systems.



FigureCurrent Water Quality Monitoring Stations within the Menomonee River and Kinnickkinnic Ri



PRIORITIZATION STRATEGIES

This s ection provides a st rategic framework f or decision-making for t he purpose of p rotectrecreation, water quality, and f isheries to m aximize current and future project cost effective

mutually exclusive, the recommended prioritization strategies are different for Land Based verMeasures as su mmarized b elow. The d ifferences i n p rioritization st rategies a re r elated t

differences p otentially li miting th e a quatic versus t errestrial community and ha bitat quMenomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. However, each of these prioritization upon the main premise of protecting the existing quality areas—either within water or on lan

those areas through reconnection of stream miles and/or acres of land to reduce fragmentation.

Land Based MeasuresThis prioritization is similar to the Tier-3 Instream fisheries approach, and is designed to focuexisting highest quality te rrestrial w ildlife h abitat areas as w ell a s ex panding riparian co r

instream quality for the short- and long-term. Prioritization of improving riparian corridors shothe improvement in ecosystem structure and function where possible, such as protection of groareas, expansion of existing corridor widths and/or connection to high quality wildlife and critareas (see Maps __ and _ _). It i s also r ecommended that this prioritization build upon c ons

space planning efforts that include: environmental corridors delineated by the Regional Planninopen space preservation elements of adopted County park and open space plans; the MMSD CGreenway Connection P lan, and G reen S eams pr ogram;30

and, the r ecently completed R

Foundation’s Menomonee River Mainstem Land Protection plan. It is important to note that ain the identification of priority a reas includes provision of the potential for stormwater mancontrol b enefits, which i s c onsistent with t he goals of t his report. In a ddition, l ands c urreownership at the State, County, City, Village, Town and nongovernmental organizations form

for prioritization of the land based measures from which to expand protections. The high prMenomonee R iver a nd Kinnickinnic R iver w atersheds are s hown on M aps __ a nd __ , r esp

priority lands identified to be protected are shown in Maps __ and __ and __ and include thinterest ownership of open space lands, the MMSD conservation areas, and the open space ar

protected by public land use r egulation, groundwater recharge areas, high quality pl ant com

riparian buffers adjacent to streams with less than 75 feet in width.

Instream Based MeasuresThis framework is based upon a three-tiered approach, focused on the reconnection of waterwhistorically isolated from the Lake Michigan drainage system (e.g., dams, roadways, and flow

or m odified t hrough s ingle-focus st ructural i nterventions ( e.g., stormwater co nveyances predicated upon a tiered approach: (Tier-1) restoring connectivity between the mainstem waterMichigan e ndpoint, (Tier-2) restoring co nnectivity between t he t ributary st reams an d t he

Menomonee a nd K innickinnic R ivers, a nd (Tier-3) expanding c onnection of hi ghmacroinvertebrate, and habitat sites within each of the watersheds as shown in Maps __and __

“catch-all” that allows stakeholders to take advantage of linking the goal of habitat restoration ongoing activities and opportunities throughout each watershed. This strategic element provide

communities an d s takeholders t o t ake ad vantage o f i nterventions throughout t he w atershindependently o f t he primary st rategy o f r estoring l inkages w ith the Great L akes and resto



scheduled reconstruction of area roadways to remove obstructions or modify channelized strmight not fully conform to the first two strategic priorities. To this end, it is further noted tha

passage w ill p rovide p assage for o ther aq uatic o rganisms, su ch as m acroinvertebrates.( providing restored connectivity, a nd a ssociated ha bitat, i t i s e nvisioned that th is p lan will n

purpose of establishing a sustainable fishery but also enhance human economic opportunities aaesthetic values associated with the waterways of the Greater Milwaukee basin.

It is fully r ecognized that within this framework opportunities will arise that should be actioeven th ough it is a g eneral p rinciple that w ill b e a rticulated w ithin this strategy th at actividownstream to upstream, the completion of an action in the headwaters area or on a tributary st

passed up o r i gnored simply because it does not c onform t o t he downstream to upstream s topportunities should be seized as su ch opportunities become available. However, where mu

exist, an d where l imited f unds a re available, this strategic framework i s intended t o assist dallocate resources where they would be most appropriate and effective in achieving the goals oquality management plan.

The Tier-1 prioritization is based upon t he understanding that Lake Michigan is t he most digreatest as set that both the M enomonee a nd Kinnickinnic R iver s ystems ha ve for t he potenmaintain a sustainable fishery. This prioritization is also based upon the understanding that wi

the widest and deepest downstream areas are generally associated with a greater abundance andcompared to narrower and shallower upstream areas.(Schlosser). For example, as shown in Ta

reaches connected with L ake Michigan (Milwaukee River Estuary) in both t he MenomoneeRivers contain the most diverse fish assemblages. This observation is also consistent with theassemblages being found within the downstream reaches of the Root and Milwaukee Rivers th

with Lake Michigan as summarized in TR-39. Position within a stream network also is an impof fish s pecies ass emblage st ructure w ith g reater abundance an d d iversity g enerally asso ci

streams located in lower portions of the stream network.(Osborne & Wi ley) Therefore, the Tier-1 approach focuses on restoring continuity of passage for native fishes on the mainstems River ( MN-19 t hrough M N-5) and K innickinnic Rivers (KK-11 t hrough K K-3) from do

Michigan to their headwaters upstream as shown on Maps __ and __, respectively. This approre-develop the f ishery though r econnection o f i ts s trongest d eterminants o f overall fish sp

assemblage structure namely Lake Michigan and the tributary networks from downstream to up

The Tier-2 prioritization is based upon the understanding that the mainstem of the Menomone

River systems is the most diverse resource and greatest asset that their respective tributaries hato restore and maintain a sustainable fishery. Tributary streams that are connected (not fragm

associated mainstem o f st ream systems have a g reater potential for i ncreased fish abundancaccess t o f eeding, r earing, sp awning as w ell a s refuge from thermal stress o r l ow-water

reference) Hence, the second tier approach is focused on addressing f ish passage continuitystreams to the mainstems of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic Rivers. These tributary swithin the subwatersheds as shown on Maps__ and __ for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Ri

The Tier-3 approach is de signed t o focus on i mproving f ish pa ssage t hroughout t he e ntir

obstructions h ave b een i dentified (see Tables __ and __ ). P rioritization of improving f is



Sampling parameters and methodologiesThe land use, surface water quality, and auxiliary elements of the recommended plan (PR-50actions, w hich w hen c ombined w ith the refined targets and actions within this memorandu

and/or help preserve the surface water quality and biological quality of the streams in both theand Kinnickinnic River watersheds. I t is also important that s teps be taken to ensure the ex

program of water quality monitoring to determine the extent to which physical, chemi

conditions a re i mproving over t ime, t o measure t emporal a nd s patial t rends, t o pr ovide daeffectiveness of water pollution control measures, and to detect new and emerging water quaimportant th at such a monitoring p rogram i ntegrate and coordinate t he u se of scarce m onimultiple agencies and groups, generate monitoring data that are scientifically d efensible adecision-making p rocess, an d m anage an d r eport w ater q uality d ata i n w ays that ar

understandable to decision m akers an d other affected parties. As summarized in the Exist

Monitoring Information section above, water quality monitoring is well established within boRiver and K innickinnic R iver watersheds. T herefore, the following sect ion su mmarizes constituents related to habitat and biological constituents and methods to conduct existing and

efforts within both of these watersheds.

Habitat AssessmentIt is essential to the proper evaluation of potential habitat improvements or impacts that phys

biological m onitoring da ta be c ollected. The h abitat methodologies should include c onside

chemical a nd phy sical p arameters an d biological r esponse p arameters w ithin t he M enoKinnickinnic River. Assessments should be consistent with protocols for characterizing habitat

both the WDNR and USGS agencies.31

In addition to these quantitative habitat methods, there

habitat rating methods developed by the WDNR for small (<10 meters or 30 feet in width) andor 30 feet in width) wadeable streams (see data sheets in Exhibit __). Although these qualitati

provide a s much i nformation a s the quantitative methods, these methods do pr ovide very uinformation, are much less t ime c onsuming t o complete, and may pr ovide a n easy methodo

monitoring.

In a ddition to t he m ore t raditional m ethodologies s ummarized a bove, t here a re ne wly e m procedur es su ch a s t he Center f or W atershed’s Unified S tream A ssessment m ethodologsystems.32

_____________ 31USGS, Protocol for characterizing Habitat, Water Resources Investigations Report 9

D f N l R G id li f E l i H bi i W d bl S J

These methodologies go beyond the traditional methods and incorporate importan

stormwater outfalls, severe erosion, impacted buf fers, utilities, trash and de bris, a nd s treammethodologies or some equivalent should be a part of the long-term monitoring strategies fRiver and Kinnickinnic River assessments. Fish passage assessment at roadway crossings is bone of the most fundamental potential limiting factors in urban watersheds, which is why itassessment protocols into monitoring programs for these watersheds (see proposed draft fish p

protocols de veloped by T he N ature C onservancy i n E xhibit __ ). It i s a lso r ecommended tEnvironmental Protection literature for information on Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision I

(CADDIS) r elated to determining st ressors t o i nvestigate f or a p articular s tream reach. CA



application that helps scientists and engineers in the Regions, States and Tribes find, accessshare i nformation to c onduct c ausal e valuations i n aquatic s ystems. It i s ba sed on t he U

Protection Agency Stressor Identification process which is a formal method for identifying cauin aquatic systems.

The amount of impervious su rface an d a land u se assessment is extremely i mportant to longterm monitoring program. These estimates form the basis for pollutant modeling, tracking

changes, and identifying opportunities. SEWRPC staff is scheduled to complete a revised landentire seven co unty so utheastern Wisconsin R egion in y ear 2010, w hich should be incmonitoring program assessment for both the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersh

Biological AssessmentBiological assessments are recommended to be conducted for fishes and macroinvertebrates

aquatic c ommunity using existing WDNR pr otocols. 33

Where possible these biological a sseconducted a t t he same monitoring s tations w here habitat da ta are co llected. F isheries surcollection o f the entire f ish as semblage. Diatoms ( microscopic a lgae) also a re g ood i ndevaluations, but limited data exists within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River system

There a re a large n umber o f p otential p arameters and/or i ndices t hat c ould b e u sed to mcommunity quality, however, some of the key recommended constituents are listed below.

FisheriesSpecies richness

Total abundanceShannon’s diversity index

Warmwater Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)34

Number and proportion of native species

Number and proportion of non-native species Number and proportion of species intolerant to pollution Number and proportion of species tolerant to pollution

Number of s pecies and individuals, native species, predator fish; and number of f ish in certsunfishes, suckers, darters, and other groups others.

Intermittent Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)35

Cool and warmwater transitional fish species

36

_____________ 33

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities ofin Wisconsin, June 2000; Hilsenhoff, W. L., “An improved index of organic stream pollut

Entomology , Volume 20, pages 31-39, 1987; and Hilsenhoff, W.L., “A modification of the biot

stream pollution to remedy problems and to permit its use throughout the year,” The Great LVolume 31, pages 1-12, 1998.

34h d f l l



Macroinvertebrates

Counts by genera

Counts by familyEphemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) Index

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)Invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)37

Number and proportion of EPT generaShannon’s diversity index

Algae

Diatom index

Hydrological assessment

Several important hydrological constituents summarized below have been identified by USGS recent research related to the effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems among thirty sites inareas around t he country, including o ne location in Milwaukee Metro ar ea. In general themeasurement co rrelates well to t he Fish IBI metric. For example, a f lashiness index above

causes t he IBI (fish) and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) ( invertebrate) m(degrading stream condition) or i f the flashiness is of a long duration the IBI increases (showfish community in a stream reach). In addition, average flow magnitude, high-flow magnitudfrequency, high-flow duration and rate of change of stream cross-sectional area were the hyd

most co nsistently associated w ith changes in algal, invertebrate, and f ish communities. Wetwere also identified as i mportant t o i ncorporate i nto a m onitoring pr ogram f or these w at

hydraulic shear stress in a stream reach is an important factor to evaluate. If the reach is in an amore scraping ef fects, the suspended solids i ncreases an d usually has more f ilter feeding i nlocation. If the reach is in an area that has less scraping effects, the suspended solids are reduce

more gathering type invertebrates.

Additional parameters to considerThere are a large number of important water quality constituents including metals, nutrients

and/or recommended to be monitored in the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watershPR-50), w hich a re e ssential to a s ound monitoring program. However, t here are a n umbetraditional measures besides improvements in dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, or temperat

important and should be incorporated into a monitoring program. These measures are a mixturimprovements to the channel, recreation, and activities. Since it may be very difficult to actudirect improvement in water quality from an activity such as the purchase of lands to enhance

one site, it remains important to identify some type of measure of achieving the goal of improvthis c ase, t he a mount o f l and purchased c ould be a g ood i ndicator o f i mplementation for

improvement of water quality. To this end, several measures are recommended to be consider program that include; improvements in wet weather and dry weather water quality, increase

recreational days, tons of contaminated sediment removed, ordinances developed or setbacks econcrete r emoved/stream r estored, m iles o f en closed p ipe r emoved, miles o f s treambank st

_____________ 37

l “ l f b d l h d h d d



riparian buffer expanded (length and width), acres of riparian buffer purchased/donated/protecfree stream reach, acres of historic fill removed, linear miles of safe fishing & canoeing in the

of fish passage obstructions removed/retrofitted, miles of channel connected to Lake Michigaquality a rea, and improvement of ha bitat quality ratings. It i s important to note t hat thes

parameters to be used, but this is a list to provide some idea of types of potential additional meaused.



LAND BASED HABITAT PROTECTION MEASURES

Riparian Corridors

Healthy r iparian c orridors he lp to p rotect w ater q uality, g roundwater, fisheries a nd w ildliflooding, ec ological resilience from i nvasive s pecies, as w ell a s reduce potential harmful

change.40

In turn, the health of riparian corridors is largely dependent upon width (size) and conefforts t o pr otect and e xpand t he remaining r iparian c orridor w idth a nd continuity a re

protecting fishery and recreation within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watershe

TargetExpand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet.

IssueAll riparian buffers provide some level of protection greater than if there were no buffer at all

buffers pr ovide a g reater num ber o f f unctions (infiltration, temperature m oderation, s pecnarrower buf fers. Therefore, i t i s i mportant t hat a ll of t he existing buf fers be protected an

possible and not be converted to urban land uses, which would lead to increased degradation tquality, wildlife and recreation of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.

Key Questions

• What are the major human uses in the area?• Where do t hey generally occur in the watershed ( map the location of i mportant u ses

developments, infrastructure, etc.)?

• What impacts are the uses having, and what opportunities are there to reduce those impac

• What needs or opportunities are there related to human uses or facilities in terms of meobjectives and moving toward desired conditions in the watersheds?

Objective

The objective is to p rotect, preserve, and expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 famong mainstem and tributary waterways throughout the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River s

Recommended Actions

To e ffect changes i n z oning or dinances t o m inimize t he a real e xtent of d evelopment by

provisions and incentives for the clustering of development on smaller lots within conservation preserving s ignificant por tions of the ope n s pace w ithin e ach pr operty or g roup of pr oper

development, and minimizing the “footprint” of the developed area relative to the open spacdevelopment site.

Consider development of setback and landscaping provisions.

Development plans should be carefully reviewed by the relevant governmental agencies and enspecific shoreland zoning requirements, and stormwater and urban nonpoint source pollution abare addressed and included in development activities.



Encourage t he p rovision f or s horeland buffers, us e of a ppropriate and e nvironmentally f r practices, and i nclusion o f st ormwater m anagement m easures t hat p rovide w ater q uality a

benefits.

Use of public lands or purchase of lands identified on Map __ t hrough donation, grants, fee sacqusition of conservation easement.

Implement management activities to promote restoration.

Conduct additional surveys to determine riparian buffer widths not yet inventoried.

Potential measures

• Stream miles of buffer width 75 feet or greater

• Tons of historic fill and/or trash removed and number of native species restored

• Area of exotic invasive species removed

• Area of native wetland or upland reconstructed

• stream miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified

TargetExpand riparian buffer continuity (connectedness).

Issuefragmentation of riparian buffers by roads, railways, and utilities combined with encroachm

buffer w idth impacts the s tructural a nd f unction of t hese c orridors a nd their ability t o awaterways and wildlife habitat.

Objective

The objective is to reduce the linear fragmentation of the existing riparian buffers by either rwhere po ssible or a t l east not i ncreasing t he number of c rossings of w aterways w ithin th

Kinnickinnic River systems, where practical. This objective is in no way to supercede the huobtain em ergency ser vices o f p olice and fire p rotection. H owever, this o bjective i s m ea

establishment of numerous roads without consideration of their cumulative impacts to the strelands and resultant water and fishery quality.

Recommended Actions

Use of publ ic lands or purchase l ands identified on M ap __ t hrough dona tion, grants, f ee s

acqusition of conservation easement.

Implement management activities to promote restoration.

Implement management activities to promote recreation.

Removal of non-essential roads where appropriate.



Issue

The ex isting p lant co mmunities, n atural ar eas, an d cr itical sp ecies h abitat ar e t he m ost v

remaining within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds and need to be prohelp provide ecological resilience locally and regionally within this highly urbanized area. In a

of groundwater recharge areas throughout the two watersheds as well as isolated natural resourwaterways should also be a priority.

Key Questions

• What plant/animal communities or species are in decline or are considered rare on the lan

• How do the current conditions compare with reference or desired conditions, and how

human activities in the watershed?

• How might the current conditions affect future land management objectives and strategiedone to bridge the gap between current and desired conditions?

• What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are importan(Threatened or Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Species of SpecialConservation Concern)?

• What is the distribution and character of their habitats?

• What activities could occur to improve riparian habitat conditions and improve wildlife h

• What needs and opportunities are there for habitat protection, maintenance, or enhanceme

Objective

Protect and manage environmentally sensitive lands to maximize native plant and animal biodgroundwater recharge.

Recommended Actions

Wetland, woodland, and groundwater recharge area protection can be accomplished through land public land acquisition of critical lands. Both measures—land use regulation and public lanrecommended for the areas tributary to the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers.

The wetland a reas, m any of which have b een historically modified or filled, are currentlythrough the existing regulatory framework provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers perwetland z oning r equirements, a nd local zoning or dinances. N early a ll w etland areas in t he included in the environmental corridors delineated by the Regional Planning Commission and p

or more of the existing Federal, State, County, and local regulations. Consistent and e ffective provisions of these regulations is recommended.

Wetland and woodland areas have been identified for acquisition in the adopted regional naturaspecies habitat protection and management plan.41 Implementation of these recommendations,

set forth in the adopted park and open space plan for Milwaukee County,42

would complement preservation of these environmentally sensitive lands.

In addition to the foregoing measures, it is also recommended that the riparian municipalities and enforce shoreland setback requirements, and construction site erosion control and s tormordinances Provision of informational materials to shoreland property owners is recommended



Restore na tive w etland a nd/or u pland pr airie communities t hrough na tive pl antings, r emov

removal of non-native exotic invasive species, among other treatments to promote native specireestablishment.

Conduct additional surveys to inventory riparian buffer widths.

Purchase of l ands t o expand buffers within t he SEWRPC-delineated P rimary a nd S econdCorridors, especially along the mainstem and tributary stream courses.

Discourage any additional development within the floodplain.

Potential measures

• Stream miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified• Stream miles or area of land protected

• Continued enforcement of local z oning ordinances and, where a pplicable, ordinance r

mitigative compensation for filling in the floodplain

Information Needs

Conduct w ildlife s pecies s urveys to identify hi gh qu ality r iparian bu ffer and/or Environmen

throughout the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. These areas would the

protection and re-connection with additional corridor lands.

Maintain up to date inventories on riparian buffer conditions and width throughout the stream s

riparian buffer inventories within tributaries not assessed.

HydrologyUrban development brings with it significant changes in the landscape. These changes historicmodification of the drainage pattern, hardening of surfaces, alteration of infiltration, and affe

and q uantity. A ll o f these ch anges g enerally i ncrease t he v olume an d r ate of r unoff a s precipitation events. Historically, these changes in rate and volume of runoff were managed aconcern, directing the runoff into natural flowages as quickly and efficiently as possible, and

flowages to convey stormwater as quickly and efficiently as possible to an endpoint, which iMichigan. I n r ecent y ears, how ever, f looding, w ater qua lity i mpairment, and environmenta

demonstrated the need for an alternative approach to stormwater management. Consequently, management practices seek t o manage r unoff us ing a v ariety of m easures, including de tentinfiltration, better mimicking the disposition of precipitation on an undisturbed landscape.

TargetModerate flow regimes to decrease flashiness.

Issue

Urbanization increases impervious surface, which can lead to an increase in “flashiness” (or theresponds to a p recipitation ev ent) that subsequently af fects st reambank st ability, st reambed



Objective

The o bjective w ould b e to em ulate s tream d ischarges i n r esponse t o r ainfall to l evels urbanization development to the extent practical. More specifically, decreases in average flow

flow m agnitude, hi gh flow e vent f requency, a nd/or hi gh-flow dur ation hy drological v aria provide potential improvements to the algal, invertebrate, and fish communities within the MenKinnickinnic River watersheds.

Recommended Actions

Implement stormwater management practices at the subwatershed level.

Implement stormwater management practices at the neighborhood (local) level.

Maintain stormwater management practices at all levels.

Restore floodplain connectivity with the stream system.

Reduce stormwater runoff to meet or surpass the runoff management standards established by and 281.16(3) of t he Wisconsin Statutes, an d t o meet o r su rpass t he r equirements o f Chap

Wisconsin Administrative Code that establishes r unoff pollution performance s tandards for ntransportation f acilities, a nd pe rformance s tandards a nd pr ohibitions f or a gricultural f acil

designed to achieve the water quality standards as required by Sections 281.16(2) and 281.16(3Statutes.

Ensure t hat ne w de velopment a nd redevelopment conform t o the r equirements of C haptWisconsin Administrative Code. The objective of the third tier approach would to retrofit existi

opportunities ar ise, so t hat s tormwater r unoff from t he d rainage ar eas o f t he R ivers m eerequirements of Chapter NR 151 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

It is recommended that riparian municipalities take an active role in promoting urban nonpoi

abatement. Actions to promote urban nonpoint source pollution abatement would include the cstormwater management planning within specific portions of the tributary area located withinwhere f urther ur ban development or r edevelopment i s a nticipated. Such a planning programreview of the stormwater management ordinances, to ensure that the ordinance provisions ref

runoff and water quality management requirements, and to ensure that there is harmony betwgoverning ur ban density d evelopment i n each of the m unicipalities draining t o Kinnickinni

Rivers. A doption b y a ll r iparian m unicipalities of c ommon s tormwater m anagement or dinstrongly recommended.

The objectives o f the f irst t ier a nd se cond t ier ap proaches w ould b e t o en sure t hat n ewredevelopment conform to t he requirements of Chapter N R 151 of the Wisconsin Adminis

objective of the third tier approach would to retrofit existing development as opportunistormwater runoff from the drainage areas of the Rivers meets or exceeds the requirements of

the Wisconsin Administrative Code.



housekeeping m easures m ay b e ex pected t o p rovide ab out a 25 percent reduction i n ur ba pollution runoff.

Improve infiltration through innovative rain garden pilot projects (Bannerman), increased num

used, number of downspouts protected, green roofs implemented, porous pavement projtechnologies and treatments.

Potential measures

• Numbers of detention and infiltration basins installed, drainage area controlled by regen

practices that achieve quality and quantity control, area of permeable paving materialwetland and upland restored, area of low-impact development

• Number of rain gardens or rain barrels installed and downspouts disconnected, green roof

• Drainage area controlled by regenerative stormwater practices that achieve quality and q

numbers of basins inspected and maintained

• Miles of stream connected with the floodplain.

• Decreases in average f low magnitude, high-flow magnitude, high flow e vent frequencyduration.

• Improvement of flashiness index, improvement of water quality all year long, and annu

overflows

Water Quality and Quantity

TargetReduce w ater q uality a nd qua ntity i mpacts f rom s tormwater ou tfalls, nonpo int runoff an

including reduction of localized erosion at pipe outfalls.

Issue

There are hundreds of outfalls distributed throughout the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnicthat have the potential to cause significant degradation to water quality and streambed and strea

Objective

Reduce water quality and quantity impacts to i mprove instream habitat and aquatic commMenomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.

Recommended Actions

Provide adequate c onveyence and storage v olume t hrough t raditional (detention a nd i nfiltinnovative techniques (bio-infiltration, green infrastructure, etc.).

Evaluate and expand existing road salt reduction programs and establish additional road salt red

Implement measures to reduce localized erosion and physically modify the most-active outfalls greatest effect on instream physical conditions).

Potential measures

• Improvement of flashiness index, improvement of water quality all year long, and annu

overflows



Monitoring and InformationIt is important that s teps be taken to en sure the ex istence of a sound p rogram o f water q udetermine the extent to which physical, chemical, and biological conditions are improving ove

temporal and spatial trends, to provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of water pollution conto detect new and emerging water quality problems. It is important that such a monitoring procoordinate the use of scarce monitoring resources of multiple agencies and groups, generate m

are scientifically defensible and relevant to t he decision-making pr ocess, and manage and r edata in ways that are meaningful and understandable to decision makers and other affected parends, t he following section summarizes the r ecommended constituents (physical, chemical, amethods to conduct existing and future monitoring efforts within both of these watersheds.

Target

Continue and expand monitoring and informational programming

Issue

It is critical to establish improvements or degradation to water quality, biological communities,conditions of the stream and associated co rridor lands i n order to assess achievement o f technologies.

Objective

Continue existing monitoring efforts and expand monitoring and informational programming w

Recommended Actions

Continue maintenance o f existing phy sical, c hemical, a nd b iological monitoring s tations monitoring sites (including wildlife monitoring) in cooperation with citizen and other monito

share the knowledge with stakeholders

Continued coordination of m onitoring s tations, s ampling s chedules, a nd s haring of d a

recommended a mong government a gencies, non -government ag encies, ci tizen m onitor

institutions.

Storm drain stenciling and related informational programming encourages residents to disposesafely, avoiding discharge directly to the surface waters or indirectly through the wastewater t

the environment.

Incorporate information from MMSDs infrastructure reports in future inventory updates to prto-date structure inventories.

Potential measures

• Number of s tations established, increases in the biological database, and d ata analysis

efforts continued or increased

• Number of citizen monitoring stations established

• Number of informational programs developed or workshops held



INSTREAM HABITAT PROTECTION MEASURES

Aquatic Organism Passage

TargetRestore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributa

Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Figure __).

Issue

Fishing, both recreational angling and commercial harvesting of fishes, remains an important ethe Greater Milwaukee watershed. The maintenance and continuity of both species of econom

the s pecies upon w hich they de pend i s a ssociated to a l arge de gree w ith t he pr otection appropriate ha bitat. T o this e nd, efforts t o r emove obs tructions t o f ish m igration a long t

tributaries o f t he M enomonee an d K innickinnic R ivers a re a k ey el ement t o the l ongtermfishery. These obstructions include dams, drop structures, roadways, and channelized river reacRemoval of these obstructions should be accompanied by the restoration or recreation of habita

and riparian corridor that is essential for resting, rearing, feeding, and spawning of fishes and ot

Key Questions

• What are the characteristics of the physical instream habitat (e.g., aquatic habitat compo

structural complexity) and what factors are influencing this condition?

•

What is t he c ondition o f a quatic c ommunities a nd w hat f actors (e.g., habitat sfragmentation, nonnative species) a re influencing t he di stribution or population v iab

desired aquatic species?

Objective

The objective is to restore the biotic integrity of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systefragmentation within these stream systems and reconnect them with the Lake Michigan basin

based upon a three-tiered approach, focused on the reconnection of waterways that have been hfrom the Lake Michigan drainage system (e.g., dams, roadways, enclosed pipe, concrete lining

structures) or modified through single-focus structural interventions (e.g., stormwater conveyais predicated upon a t iered approach: (Tier-1) restoring connectivity between the mainstem wLake Michigan endpoint, (Tier-2) restoring connectivity between the tributary streams and the

Menomonee a nd K innickinnic R ivers, a nd (Tier-3) e xpanding c onnection of hi ghmacroinvertebrate, and habitat sites within each of the watersheds as shown in Maps __and __.

structures are removed or retrofitted to p romote fish passage over time, the more these syste provide access to t he highest quality habitat areas for feeding, r earing, spawning to restore fishery within both of these watersheds.

Recommended Actions

Develop pl ans for and remove concrete within the lower reach of t he mainstem of the M(concrete lining from River Mile 3.62 to 4.24 in MN-18) and the Kinnickinnic River (concrete and KK-10).



Develop p lans f or removal and/or re trofit additional obs tructions such a s road c rossin(daylighting st reams), d ebris jams, am ong o thers on t he m ainstem and tributaries a nd im

throughout the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. However, given the impneeds of m aintaining t he G eneral M itchell I nternational A irport within th e K K-4 subw

recommended that projects to improve fish passage be implemented within KK-4. The airport this area, which was historically comprised of a complex wetland system as shown in the 1836Map __. The areas underneath the airport is currently served by an extensive series of stormw

which are designed to minimize flooding in the airport grounds. It is not envisioned that it is fto modify these systems, however there are continued opportunities for actions to i mprove wKK-4 from pollutant runoff from deicing agents or other constituents.

Develop d etailed assesments to ex pand p assage r estoration efforts b eyond the m ainstem

prioritze them, and implement them.

Potential measures

• Stream miles of concrete removed,

• Number of native species present or some equivalent biological indicator (see biological

above)

• Number of structures removed or retrofitted such as bridge crossings or drop structures

• Stream miles o f en closed ch annel d aylighted or retrofitted, n umber o f Tributary m

mainstem, or miles of stream channel restored

Information Needs

Refine as sessment o f fish p assage o bstructions throughout the Menomonee River and Kwatersheds (see attachments for protocols).

Aquatic HabitatTargetRestore fish and aquatic organism habitat from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaTiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Figure __).

Issue

Since the early 1800s both the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River systems have been sthrough c hannelization, land us e (agricultural and urban de velopment) impacts, r oad constrconveyance systems, historic fill, and other historic and present day actions that has lead to h

physically, chemically, and hydrologically.

Key Questions

• What are the basic morphological characteristics of streams in the watershed?• What are the causes of current instabilities in the hydrologic processes within the watersh

• What aquatic resources are they affecting?

• How do current riparian conditions contribute to existing channel conditions?

• How much area within the watershed has severe erosion and where does it occur?

• What are the dominant hydrologic characteristics (e g total discharge peak flows mi



to i mprove s everal di mensions of habitat that i nclude but are n ot l imited t o el ements such depth, pool-riffle s tructure, st ream h ydrology, variable su bstrate co mposition, an d i nstre

overhanging vegetation or large woody debris. As more and more habitat among reaches are imthe more these systems will be able to provide access to the h ighest quality h abitat areas fospawning to restore a more sustainable fishery within both of these watersheds.

Recommended Actions

Protect and expand existing highest quality remaining fishery and aquatic habitat (see Map __)

Enhance f isheries w ithin r each KK-11 of the K innickinnic River and within reach MN-19 oRiver by providing for f ish spawning, juvenile rearing, as w ell as refuge and f eeding areas. methods could include provision of spawning reefs that have been successfully established by W

and ad jacent t o t he Mi lwaukee River Estuary as w ell as p otential u se o f em erging t echno

Cuyahoga H abitat U nderwater B askets (CHUBs) pioneered by t he Cuyahoga R iver C oOrganization with financial s upport f rom t he U S A rmy C orps o(http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/index.html).

Provide instream habitat treatments including pool and riffle structure, substrates, and vegetatio

Protect excessively eroding streambanks or streambeds, especially where structures such as bri buildings are threatened.

Restore connectivity with floodplain and recreate a more natural meandering stream, which is to be undertaken simultaneously with restoring habitat areas where possible, in order to provhabitat life history needs of fish and aquatic organisms (rearing, feeding, spawning, and refuge

Maintain water quality conditions conducive to a successful and sustainable fishery.

Remove trash and other debris from the stream channel and adjacent riparian areas.

Expand operation of MMSDs River Skimmer clean-up program within the Menomonee and Ksystems.

Potential measures

• Stream miles of habitat protected

• Stream miles of habitat created

•

Number of miles connected and functional as fish and aquatic organism habitat,• Number of native species present or some equivalent biological indicator (see biological

above)

• Tons of trash and debris removed

• Improvements in thermal regime, oxygen concentrations and/or fluctuations, turbidity, ch

http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/index.html






Issue

Since the early 1800s both the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River systems have been s

through c hannelization, land us e ( agricultural and urban development) impacts, r oad constrconveyance systems, historic fill, and other historic and present day actions that has lead toaquatic community degradation to fishes, amphibians, invertebrates, and algae.

Key Questions

• What aquatic o r semi-aquatic ( amphibian) communities o r species a re in d ecline o r a

within and adjacent to streams?

• How do the current conditions compare with reference or desired conditions, and how

human activities in the watershed?

• How might the current conditions affect future land management objectives and strategiedone to bridge the gap between current and desired conditions?

• What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are importan(Threatened or Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Species of SpecialConservation Concern)?

• What is the distribution and character of their habitats?

• What activities could occur to improve riparian habitat conditions and improve wildlife h

• What needs and opportunities are there for habitat protection, maintenance, or enhanceme

Objective

The objective is t o r estore a sustainable fishery through the improvement of multiple aquaticommunities that i nclude f ishes, i nvertebrates, a lgae, m ussels, an d am phibians. Althouginformation o n am phibians, m ussels, o r al gae, t hese a re i mportant d imensions n ecessa

sustainable f ishery t arget. T he p rioritization strategy i s b ased u pon t he t hree-tiered ap prodescribed above and is focused on expanding the most diverse and highest quality aquatic comMenomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds (see Map __ and Table__).

Recommended Actions

Protect and expand remaining or existing highest quality aquatic communities (see Map __ and

Reintroduction of native species

Develop and implement plans for control and removal of non-native species

Potential measures

• Number, type, and life stages of native species observed (see biological assessment sectio

• Area cleared or tons removed of non-native species

Monitoring and informational programming

TargetContinue and expand monitoring and informational programming.

Issue

K Q i



Key Questions

• Where are the existing physical, chemical, and biological monitoring points in the area?

• What are the current monitoring protocols—site locations, frequency of sampling, param

• What are the opportunities for citizen monitoring and participation by schools?

Objective

The ob jective of the e nvironmental m onitoring a ctivities i s t o d ocument s cientifically-soun

information on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the Kinnickinnic and Menguide management interventions in the River systems. Scientifically-sound data and related inthe basis not only for completing the detailed engineering and technical designs of specific inte

provides a basis for assessing success or failure of specific interventions. These data also form process o f pu blic k nowledge bui lding a ssociated w ith increasing publ ic a wareness of theKinnickinnic a nd M enomonee R iver ba sins, but f urther pr ovide an avenue for di rect c ivic i

design and implementation of priority projects. The goal of the monitoring projects would bethe be fore-and-after c onditions extent in th e vicinity of e ach in tervention a ctivity, in both

downstream f low d irections an d cr oss-river t ransects. Wh ile r iver d epth an d flow c onditconsiderations in de termining t he t ypes a nd na ture of t he m onitoring t o be c onductedclassroom-based monitoring may be appropriate in some situations where samples and data canwithout risk to volunteers or students; professional monitoring may be more appropriate for and in situations where specialized knowledge or equipment may be required—it is envisioned

of citizen monitoring and monitoring by pr ofessional staff (e.g., USGS, WDNR, MMSD, an

required to document interventions and their outcomes.

The objective of the informational programming is to enhance awareness of the values of the

their t ributaries as elements o f the na tural resource ba se, a s v ital a rteries o f t he l ocal ne igimportant economic resources for the communities through which the rivers and the tributaries

Restoration o f n aturalized sy stems an d t he r econnection o f l inkages b etween st ream r eacsegmented by structures is not without risk. The introduction and spread of exotic invasive sp

continues to be a problem in the greater Milwaukee watersheds and Lake Michigan. Howeve

regardless o f t he connectivity o f st ream seg ments and st ream t o L ake. N onnative species hcontinue t o be, introduced i nto i nland waters o f the State i n the absence of d irect linkages

Lakes and the tributary st reams. C onsequently, t he presence o f nonnative sp ecies should nreason t o maintain t he status quo. The removal of impediments to t he movement o f f ish an

benefit desirable species as well as nonnative species.

Nevertheless, the presence of nonnative species in a habitat can produce alterations in the phys

characteristics of the habitat. Since the early 19th century, at least 145 nonnative species, prefer

into the Great Lakes through ballast water discharges from ships, have become established iOther nonnative species, such as common carp, Eurasian water milfoil, zebra mussels and purp been introduced into the greater Milwaukee watersheds from other sources, and have become eand streams throughout the region. Typically, these populations can grow rapidly due t

reproductive capacities and the absence of predators, parasites, pathogens, and competitors inOnce established in a waterbody, these species can rarely be eliminated, but, rather, are capab

and h drological data) chemical a nd biological ( fisheries a nd i n ertebrate po p lation da ta



and hy drological data), chemical, a nd biological ( fisheries a nd i nvertebrate po pulation da taselection o f sp ecific p arameters s hould b e g uided not on ly by e xisting da ta c ollection pr

consistency and continuity of data collection, but also by the likely interventions to be considerAgain, these data should be collected both before and after the interventions are designed and data w ill pr ovide t he b asis for e valuating t he e ffectivity of the s pecific i nterventions aimplementation of similar (successful) measures elsewhere in the watersheds.

Citizen an d st udent s upported m onitoring pr ograms a lso s hould b e s upported a nd i ntegrcollection and analysis process associated with the professional programs noted above. Thesvehicle for ongoing data collection that frequently extend beyond the specific project period,

both t o enhanced civic awareness a nd t o the e ducation of youth. Continue a nd e xpand moninventory maintenance for fish passage, habitat, aquatic organisms, and water quality.

Develop ne w m onitoring s ites i n c ooperation w ith c itizen a nd o ther m onitoring pr ograknowledge with stakeholders.

Because prevention remains the first line of defense in the protection of the ecological integrthe Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, it is recommended that programs to reduce the spreainvasive species as well as programs to inform and educate the public on these issues be continu

Potential measures

• Number of stations established and conditions documented and shared with stakeholders

• Number of stations established and numbers of informational programs delivered

RecreationTargetImprove recreational opportunities.

IssueThe Kinnickinnic and Menomonee Rivers and t heir tributary streams form an important elem

resources base of the metropolitan Milwaukee area. The location of the Rivers within environmopen sp ace areas p rovides an o pportunity f or p eople t o u tilize an d en joy t hese r esources foaesthetic v iewing pur poses. Consequently, these resources c an provide an essential a venue

stressors among t he population. Such us es a lso s ustain other i ndustries associated w ith outrecreational an d other uses of t he na tural e nvironment, and, therefore, provide economic oplocal communities.

Key Questions

•

Where are the major human concentrations in the area?• What are the current recreational opportunities within the River basins?

• What are the limitations to outdoor recreation?

• What are so me of t he other opportunities t hat co uld b e captured, such as l inking t rai

water trails, and connecting with community businesses and attractions?

• What i mpacts ar e t he recreational a ctivities having a nd w hat opportunities a re t her



Recommended Actions

With r espect t o t he regulation and management of f ishing, boating and r elated l and-opportunities offered by the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River watershed, it is recommendedof enforcement be maintained.

In addition, recreational boating access users should be made aware of the presence of the exo

Eurasian water milfoil within River systems. Appropriate signage should be placed at the publias the yacht club) recreational boating sites, and supplemental materials on the control of inva

be made available to the public. These materials could be provided to r iparian householdersdrops or di stribution of informational materials at public buildings, such as municipal buildilibrary, and to nonriparian users by means of informational materials provided at the e ntran

public recreational boating access sites.

It is recommended that disposal bins be made available at the public recreational boating accesof plant materials and other refuse removed from watercraft using the public recreational boatin

Additionally, the rivers, their associated parkways, and proximity to other economic and cultumetropolitan Milwaukee region provide further opportunities for linking watersheds through b

water-based t rails (see recreational trails Map _ _). C onnecting t hese l andscape f eatures thrsystem of roads, trails, paths, and waterways will further bolster the need for services, includin

hostelries, restaurants, and entertainment, as well as outlets for supplies and maintenance. All oturn, provide outlets for informational programming materials that will build awareness of the venvironment to the region, and create a base for citizen and stakeholder action to underpin the n

in ecosystem management.

Consider removal of br idges or ot her na vigational hazards to reduce the risk of injury anrecreation.

Consider removal of concrete enclosed pipes to improve recreational opportunities and safety w

Consider signage to advise boaters of obstructions and/or other safety hazards.

Potential measures

• Number of facilities maintained, public access sites

• Numbers of signs installed to identify unsafe navigational hazards, number of navigationa

or r etrofitted, num ber of new publ ic a ccess s ites or f acilities c reated, num ber of iinstalled

•

Number of safe r ecreation days, n umber of ar eas i dentified as s afe for recreation, nuconstructed in confined channels

• Source locations identified, improvement of trash accumulation points in the watershed

identified, collected, and disposed of

Ancillary recommendations

• Maintain contact w ith S tate C ounty and L ocal e lected of ficials a nd inform them of c



• Maintain contact w ith S tate C ounty and L ocal e lected of ficials a nd i nform them of c protection of the Rivers and associated tributaries. Consider introduction of a programRiver Coalition “Send your Legislator Down the River” awareness program.

• Encourage inclusion of River oriented curricula in Local schools. Promote river monitori

stenciling in cooperation with community organizations such as the Urban Ecology Cen• Share inventory information with MMSD, WDNR, and SEWRPC to incorporate into plan

• Consider e stablishment of de monstration projects o n your ow n pr operty. E ncourage

demonstration projects or sustainable landscaping in public parks.

• Create and erect signage on Watershed boundaries or River crossings on local roadway

permissions.

• Develop and distribute newsletters at municipal buildings and public libraries. Also corecycled paper placemats containing river access points and activities of interest, to loc

• Create a r ecreational opportunity map showing locations such as access p oints, parks, birding and watching salmon runs (seek sponsorship of publication cost from businesse

• Sponsor a poster o r photograph or e ssay or v ideo contest to pr omote a wareness a nd

Rivers a nd their w atersheds. S olicit p rizes and s upport from c ommunity bus inesorganizations.

• Identify a ctivities a ppropriate to c ommunity y outh a nd s ervice or ganizations a nd s h

leadership of these groups (eg. eagle scout projects, community garden projects)

• Promote synergies with existing community act ivities and organizations such as recyc

project clean sweep, among others. Develop partnerships with Department of Tourism

outlets and o ffices to promote River oriented outdoor r ecreation. Partner with l ocal regard bike shops, canoe liveries, ice cream parlors).

• Develop a “River Day” annual event to promote awareness of the ongoing efforts to p

fisheries an d r ecreation. Encourage p ublic access television s tations t o d evelop,

programs related to the natural history of the specific rivers.

• Compile an or al and/or photographic history of the rivers in partnership with County h

Sponsor a river oriented display in community centers and libraries focused on local ne

• Develop a r evolving grant pr ogram t o s upport v arious a ctivities t o pr otect a nd e nh

throughout the watersheds similar to the program created by Root-Pike Water Initiative

SUMMARY

Habitat for fish and aquatic organisms is coincident with the maintenance of human economic aKinnickinnic an d M enomonee R iver w atersheds. P rovision o f f ish an d aq uatic life p asrestoration and recreation of instream and riparian habitat. This habitat provides not only refuaquatic life, but also forms feeding and breeding areas necessary for the survival of these org

habitat, i n t he f orm of vegetated buffers, contributes t o the natural ambience of the river

tributaries, a nd provides important ecosystem s ervices i n t he f orm of f lood m itigation, grouwater quality enhancement, and t errestrial wildlife. Reconnection of the rivers and streams thelps t o pr otect and p romote human a ctivities in t he watersheds, limiting f lood damage an

public health, while at t he same time enhancing the visual landscape and providing the huma

recreational opportunities, i ncluding a ngling, boa ting, a nd s cenic v iewing oppor tunities. I nid i l d l ith i t i t ti d f th

It is important to note that this Memorandum represents a refinement of the regional water q



It is important to note that this Memorandum represents a refinement of the regional water q plan update PR-50 specifically for fishery, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data gathered since

plan up to the year 2009. Therefore, the recommendations summarized in this memorandum assuse objectives and standards are a high priority action and continue to be achieved as r ecomHabitat measures are wholly dependent on the continued improvement of water quality in botRiver and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.

Continued m onitoring of a quatic ( physical, c hemical, bi ological) a nd t errestrial conditioncomponent of both the l and ba sed a nd instream ba sed pr iority a ctions i n or der t o doc umeobjectives set forth in PR-50 and to refine the objectives as necessary as remedial measures asimplemented.

Within t his context, t he following groups of management measures represent critical p rio

protect an d en hance l and b ased an d i nstream h abitat w ithin the Menomonee River and Kwatersheds.

Habitat-Land based measures:1. Riparian buffer protection and expansion with a priority on reducing fragmentation.2. Stormwater quantity to reduce flashiness and quality to moderate contaminant loads i

metals, salts (chloride), among others.3. Management of terrestrial diversity through control of exotic invasive species, native p

Habitat-Instream based measures:1. Restore fish and aquatic organism passage to enhance connectivity with Lake Michigan

2. Protect and enhance instream habitat through stabilization of areas with excessive banremoval of concrete and restoration of stream hydrology dynamics, and reconnection w

3. Management of aquatic diversity through supplemental stocking, control of exotic invcontinued ha bitat i mprovement ( eg. s pawning f loodplain o r r eef a reas, juvenile reand/or critical species re-introductions).

Priority Actions to Improve habitatBased upon the analysis and the critical priority actions set for above specific management meof the watersheds are elaborated below.

Kinnickinnic River

• Fisheries en hancement p rojects w ithin KK-11 s hould c onsider h abitat r ecreation t o

spawning, juvenile rearing, as well as refuge and feeding areas. Habitat restoration met provision of spawning reefs that have been successfully established by WDNR staff witthe Milwaukee R iver E stuary as w ell as potential u se o f emerging t echnologies su ch

Habitat Underwater Baskets (CHUBs) pioneered by the Cuyahoga River Community Planwith financial s upport f rom t he U S A rmy Corps o

(http://www.cuyahogariverrap.org/index.html).

• Continued expansion of riparian buffers through linking public, private, and other protect







p p g g p , p , p

• Continued expansion of r ecreational t rails an d cr eation of linkages between these r ecregional recreational trails.

• Develop demonstration projects to promote newly emerging technologies such as green r

porous pavement, among others to promote both water quality improvement and peak f

(reduction in flashiness) throughout the watershed.

Menomonee River

• Removal of approximately 3,800 linear feet of concrete (within reach MN-18) in the vic

Avenue and IH-94 to reestablish fish passage to upstream reaches from Lake Michigan.

should include provisions for l ow-flow fish passage through a ser ies of pools and rifflside slopes and retaining walls should be removed and regarded. This concrete removaexperience and lessons learned from the Underwood Creek rehabilitation project in the

subwatershed, which integrated floodplain mitigation and fisheries habitat improvements

• Removal a nd/or retrofitting o f f ive low-gradient s tructures w ithin th e vicinity N orth

Parkway b etween S wan Boulevard and Harmonee Av enue ( within R each MN-17A)consist of 3 s ewer crossings, one old road, and one g rade control structure. Rehabilitat

instream habitat be undertaken as part of this removal. Concrete is not recommended tostream channel or floodplain.

• Continued expansion of riparian buffers through linking public, private, and other protect

• Continued expansion of r ecreational t rails an d cr eation of linkages between these r ecregional recreational trails.

• Develop demonstration projects to promote newly emerging technologies such as green r

porous pavement, among others to promote both water quality improvement and peak f(reduction in flashiness) throughout the watershed.

* * *#148397 V1 - SWWT HABITAT SUBCOMMITTEE FINAL REPORT-091125

300-4100

TMS/SWT11/25/09

Exhibit __



Menomonee River

River Crossing – Fish Passage ObstructionsN. Menomonee River Pkwy between Swan Blvd & Harmonee Ave



Exhibit __`



List of maps needed (A) Menomonee River watershed and (B) Kinnickinnic River watershed



Map 1A & 1B-Watershed with mainstem vs tributary, reaches & assessment points

Map 2A & 2B-Historic versus current stream channel

Map 3A & 3B-Stream channel conditions (including: dams, drop structures, aggrading,

bedrock, concrete, enclosed channel, eroding) and biological quality conditions (fishes, macrhabitat) from 2000-2009

Map 4A & 4B-Riparian corridor conditions (buffer width categories < 75 f eet and >75 feet,INRA) and plant community conditions (FQI ratings)

Map 5A & 5B- Riparian corridor conditions (buffer width categories < 75 feet and >75 feet, INRA) and Groundwater recharge potential conditions (low, medium, high, very high quality ra

Map 6A & 6B -Proposed pr iority pr otection a reas (Public/Private ownership, open space t oMMSD Conservation Areas)

Map 7A & 7B -Point s ource m ap (CSO, S SO, a nd stormwater o utfalls, non contact c ooling permits) and water quality monitoring map (MMSD, USGS, Milwaukee River Keepers)

Map 8A & 8- 3-Tiered Prioritization strategy for instream habitat improvement projects



KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-2

KK-1

KK-4

KK-9KK-3

KK-8

KK-8

KK-10

KK

KK-11

KK-3

KK-5

KK-2

KK-1

KK-6

KK-7





KK-8

KK-10

KK-11

KK-3

KK-2

KK-1

KK-6

KK-7





KK-6

KK-7

KK-8

KK-1

KK-2

KK-11

KK-10

KK-3

04087159_20070906

04087159

04087159

15311264

11852289



Tier 1ConnectioLake Mich

Kinnickinnic River Prioritization



Tier 2:Connectionto Mainstem

Cto

Qu(S

NOTE: Fish passage is not a priority within the KK-4 subwatershed

Table __



K K - 4

K K - 8

K K - 5

K K - 6

K K - 7

K K - 1

Parameter W i l s o n P a r k

C r e e k - U p p e r

W i l s o n P a r k

C r e e k - L o w e r

H o l m e s

A v e n u e

C r e e k

V i l l a M a n n

C r e e k

C h e r o k e e

P a r k C r e e k

L y o n s P a r k

C r e e k

Stream Channel Conditions Area (square miles)3.47 3.56 1.72 1.32 0.96 1.33Total Stream Length (miles) 6.95 5.17 2.64 1.66 2.23 1.46

Streambed Conditions Concrete Lined Channel (miles) 1.13 1.94 1.15 0.56 0 0.46

Concrete Lined Channel (percent) 16 37 44 34 0 32

Enclosed Channel (miles) 3.31 1.14 1.31 0.41 0.73 0.38

Enclosed Channel (percent) 48 22 50 25 33 26

Streambank Conditions

Proportion of Total Stream Length

assessed (percent) 0 25 0 11 63 48

Proportion Eroding (percent) NA 36.3 NA 25.4 62.8 53.4

Obstructions Dam & Drop Structures (number) 0 0 0 3 1 10

Road Crossings-culverts, bridges(number) 8 11 3 8 5 9

Total obstructions-Road/rail

Crossings, culverts, bridges, dams,

drop structures (number/mi) 3 3 1 16 3 15

Point Source Outfall

Locations Non-Contact Cooling water permits 2 0 3 0 0 0

Individual Permits (number) 1 0 0 0 0 0

SSO (number) 2 1 0 0 0 1

CSO (number) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stormwater Outfalls (number) 4 13 4 2 1 4

Point source outlet totals (number) 9 14 7 2 1 5

Stormwater Outfalls (number/stream

mile) 1.5 3.7 1.5 2.8 0.4 3.1

Point source outlets (number/stream

mile) 3.5 4.0 2.7 2.8 0.4 3.8

PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AMONG REACHES WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RI

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds



K K - 4

K K - 8

K K - 5

K K - 6

K K - 7

K K - 1

Parameter W i l s o n P a r k

C r e e k - U p p e r

W i l s o n P a r k

C r e e k - L o w e r

H o l m e s

A v e n u e

C r e e k

V i l l a M a n n

C r e e k

C h e r o k e e

P a r k C r e e k

L y o n s P a r k

C r e e k

Riparian Buffersa

Proportion of Total Stream Length

that Riparian buffers were assessed

(percent) 41 73 47 75 70 79

< 75 percent of total 100.00 90.29 100.00 100.00 80.98 90.20

> 75 feet in buffer width (percent) 0.00 9.71 0.00 0.00 19.02 9.80

Plant Community Assessment

bFQI-Poor (number sites) - - 2 - - - - - - - -

FQI-Fair (number sites) - - - - 1 - - - - 1

FQI-Fairly Good (number sites) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total (number) 0 2 1 0 0 1

Monitoring Stations Milwaukee River Keepers-Level 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -

Milwaukee River Keepers-Level 2 - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Milwaukee River Keepers-Thermal 1 - - - - - - - - - -

MMSD Surface Water Quality

Monitoring Sites - - 1 - - - - - - - -

MMSD Continuous Water Quality

Monitoring Sites - - - - - - - - - - - -

USGS Level Gauge Stations 3 1 - - - - - - - -

USGS Continuous Water Quality

Monitoring Sites - - - - - - - - - - - -

Precipitation Gauges - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total (number) 5 4 0 0 0 0

a

Riparian buffer segments includes separate buffer widths for the right bank and left bank

The following qualities were assigned to the FQI Index (10-19 = Poor, 20-29 = Fair, 30-39 = Good, 40-49 = Very good, 50-59 = Ex

Table __

Fish species composition among reaches of the Kinnickinnic River watershed: 1902-1999 versus 2000-20009



1902-1999 2000-2009 1902-1999 2000-2009 1902-1999 2000-2009 1900-19

Intolerant

Greater Redhorsea

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

Redhorse Species - - - - - - - - X - - X

Smallmouth bass - - - - - - - - - - Xb

- -

Intermediate Tolerance

Alewife - - - - - - - - X - - X

Black Bullhead - - - - - - - - X - - X

Brassy Minnow - - - - X - - - - - - X

Brook trout - - - - - - - - - - Xb - -

Brown trout - - - - - - - - - - Xb - -

Brook Stickleback X - - - - - - - - - - X

Chinook Salmon - - - - - - - - X Xb

X

Coho Salmon - - - - - - - - X - - XCommon shiner - - - - - - X - - - - - -

Gizzard Shad - - - - - - - - X - - X

Johnny Darter X - - - - - - - - - - X

Northern Pike - - - - - - - - X XbX

Orangespotted Sunfish X - - - - - - - - - - X

Pumpkinseed - - - - - - - - X - - X

Rainbow Trout - - - - - - - - X XbX

Striped Shiner c - - - - X - - - - - - X

Threespine Stickleback - - - - - - - - X - - X

Yellow perch - - - - - - - - - - Xb

- -

Walleye - - - - - - - - - - Xb

- -Tolerant

Banded Killifishd - - - - X - - - - - - X

Common Carp - - - - - - - - X - - X

Creek Chub X - - - - - - X - - X

Fathead Minnow X - - - - X X - - X

Golden Shiner - - - - - - - - X - - X

Goldfish - - - - X X X - - X

Green Sunfish - - - - - - - - X - - X

White Sucker - - - - - - - - X - - X

Total species 5 0 4 3 18 8

b

24Total native & gamefish species 5 0 3 2 14 8b

20

Total non-native species 0 0 1 1 4 0 4

Total Intolerants 0 0 0 0 2 1b

2

Total Intermediate 3 0 2 1 9 7b14

Total Tolerant 2 0 2 2 7 0 8

Years sampled Years sampled Ye

Reaches

KK-4, KK-5, KK-6, KK-7, KK-8 KK-1, KK-2, KK-3, KK-10 KK-11

Species According to Their Relative

Tolerance to Pollution

Upstream Confluence of Wilson

Park Creek with the Kinnickinnic

River

Upper Kinnickinnic River to River

Mile 2.81

Lower Kinnickinnic River

downstream concrete lining

(approximately River Mile 2.81

at 6th Street) to confluence with

Milwaukee Harbor Estuary En

Years sampled

Road/Stream Crossing Inspection Data Sheet



Name of Observer(s)_____________________________ Date _____________

GPS coordinates (lat/long.) __________________________________ OR T/R____________ Sec_

Road Name__________________ Road type State County Private O

Stream Name__________________________________ OR Unnamed stream

Additional comments about location (milepost, etc.):

Road Surface (circle all that apply) Paved Gravel Native

Evidence of crossing blow-out? Y N

Evidence of beaver activity? Y N

Structure Type (circle one) culvert bridge ford

Culvert Characteristics

(for multiple culverts, use page 4 for additional culvert information)

Culvert Shape (circle one) Culvert Material Condition of Structure (check all that app

Round Plastic Plugged ___% ; where? inlet

Square/Rectangle Concrete Crushed

Open Bottom Square/Rectangle Metal Rusted through

Open Bottom Arch Wood Condition comments:_________________

Pipe Arch

Ellipse

Culvert Measurements:

Culvert Height ________ feet

l id h f

CA

Inlet

Road Surface

Erosion of road near crossing? Y N

Embankment

D. Bridge Characteristics (for multiple cells see pg. 4):

Bridge type (# from diagram) _______



Bridge surface material:Wood Open decking? Y N

Concrete Asphalt

Metal other __________

Bridge Measurements:A: _______feet C: _______feet

B: _______feet D: _______feet

C. Stream Measurements (See standard procedure in instruction sheet ):

A: Bankfull Width __________feet

B: Bankfull Depth

(B1) ______feet (B2)______feet (B3)______feet

C: Water depth _______ feet

Flow conditions: overbank at bankfull below bankfull very low

Fish present? Y N

For Multiple Culverts or Multiple Bridge cells

Number of culverts or bridge cells ________

For Culverts:

For Bridge Cells:

Culvert

#

Culvert

Height (ft.)

Culvert

Width (ft.)

depth of

water in

culvert

Outlet

perch (see

pg.1)

Condition

(see pg. 1)

2

34

5

6

A

B1 B3B2

Cross-section of stream chann

C





Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sweet-water
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

KKCh4 AppendixA 120809

Documents