Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Chapter 2: Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Watershed Restoration Plan

The primary purpose of this Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is to develop an adaptive plan with stakeholders that works towards cost-effective water quality and habitat improvement in the watershed. Recognizing the need to work towards meeting water quality standards and that stakeholders would like to see improvements (particularly to habitat) that may go beyond meeting water quality standards, the WRP provides specific actions that can be implemented in the short term (three to five years) and lays out a more general plan for the long term to meet these objectives. The WRP used the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) as the stakeholder group for development of the plan and will also use the SWWT as the vehicle for the plans implementation. 2.2 Pathway to the Watershed Restoration Plan 2.2.1 The Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Districts 2020 Facilities Planning Process (2002-2007) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (USEPA) watershed approach to facilities planning has been completed in southeastern Wisconsin by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) in partnership with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the regions 208 planning agency. This combined, innovative planning project called the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) consisted of the MMSDs 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP) and SEWRPCs Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU). The 2020 FP component of the WQI was completed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in 2007 and concluded the following: 1) Nonpoint pollution (i.e., stormwater runoff) is the largest source of fecal coliform bacteria, a primary pollutant of concern; however, it should be noted that a significant fraction of the nonpoint bacteria load could be coming from failing (exfiltrating) sanitary sewers or potentially illicit sanitary connections. The annual bacteria load percentages by source category to the six greater Milwaukee watersheds (GMW) are shown in Figure 21. 2) Eliminating the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that occur two to three times per year and the very infrequent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) that still may occur during extreme wet weather conditions accompanied by widespread flooding will result in little or no water quality improvement on an annual basis. 3) Significant improvements to water quality can only be achieved through regional implementation of extensive measures to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. 4) The MMSDs primary focus of the 2020 FP must be to develop a recommended plan that meets the regulatory requirements regarding MMSDs point sources. 5) Recommendations for nonpoint control measures are presented in the RWQMPU because MMSD lacks authority to implement regional nonpoint control measures.

2-1

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

Rural Nonpoint Stormw ater < 0.1%

Industrial < 0.1%

SSOs 20%

CSOs 11% Urban Nonpoint Stormw ater 69%

FIGURE 2-1: ANNUAL BACTERIA LOAD PERCENTAGES BY SOURCE CATEGORY TO THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS

2.2.2 Forging a New Path As the WQI was being completed, many stakeholders in the Milwaukee area began to realize that a means of implementing the broader recommendations of the RWQMPU was needed. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure 2-2, which was an attempt to address the question what next? This question was often accompanied by the question - why cant we forge a new path?

2-2

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Note that this figure shows an organization called the Milwaukee Regional Partnership Initiative. This has been renamed the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. FIGURE 2-2: WHAT PATHWAYS EXIST FOR PROGRESS?

The USEPA encourages and supports watershed area planning intended to achieve needed water quality improvements in the most cost effective manner. The RWQMPU recommends a holistic set of pollution abatement actions that will ultimately lead to significantly improved water quality in the GMW. These actions will address regulatory goals in terms of water quality improvement and must be implemented by a variety of governmental agencies and individual property owners. The question for the Milwaukee area was how to start this process? 2.3 Plan Implementation Considerations 2.3.1 Consideration of Total Maximum Daily Load Analyses A workshop on Integrated Watershed Implementation Planning was held in March 2007 and was attended by the USEPA, WDNR, SEWRPC, MMSD and technical consultant staff, and other local and national leaders in watershed planning. The purpose was to form the foundation for the watershed implementation plan and, more specifically, consider the next steps for water quality improvement in the Milwaukee area. The agenda for this meeting is shown in Appendix 2A.

2-3

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

WDNR, 2008 Methodology for Placing Waters on the Impaired Waters List (last revised February 17, 2008), http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/2008/2008methodology.htm

2-4

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

NR 151 requirements independent of TMDL findings changed the course and form of the GMW TMDL program. 2.3.3 Total Maximum Daily Loads and the Clean Water Act The discussion between the MMSDs technical team and the WDNR related to some fundamental assumptions of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). Specifically, the MMSDs technical team and the WDNR analyzed the relative merits of building nonpoint/stormwater water quality improvement actions from the top down using a uniform technology program, or from the bottom up starting with existing water quality data and building programs specifically to meet water quality objectives. The similarity between the NR 151 regulatory requirement and the CWA is that the application of a uniform technology program is fundamentally assumed to be the minimum effort needed to meet water quality standards. Additional water quality improvement effort was assumed to be required when this minimum initial activity based upon uniform technology application did not result in meeting water quality standards. The original CWA envisioned that nonpoint/stormwater improvement would be based solely on water quality, not on uniform, minimum technology requirements. As outlined in a recent publication from the University of Texas:2 TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load and is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive from all of its sources and still meet water quality standards set by the state for designated uses. Though TMDLs have only recently been thrust into the spotlight, they are not a new idea. The TMDL program is simply the enforcement of rules provided in the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Sections 303 (a), 303 (b), and 303 (c) of the CWA mandate that states develop water quality standards for water bodies within their boundaries based on the designated uses of these water bodies. These sections also provide guidelines for development and review of these standards. The provisions in the CWA that called for non-point source pollution control and TMDLs were largely ignored for 20 years following the passage of the CWA partly due to our lack of knowledge concerning non-point source pollution and its control. Instead, efforts to control water pollution were focused on implementing best available technology to clean up point-source pollution. Many challenges exist in the implementation of the TMDL program. Non-point source pollution, which is basically stormwater runoff that has been polluted by land use, is still not well understood. It is difficult to quantify loadings produced by non-point source pollution and to predict the water quality responses of water bodies due to these loadings. Also, the connection of non-point source pollution to land use means that it must be controlled through land use practices, or the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). For the same reasons we do not understand non-point source pollution, we do not fully understand the effectiveness of BMPs. Furthermore, many landowners are affected by the TMDL program and must be involved in the planning process. Considering that 21,000 water bodies were reported that did not meet water quality standards, and that the resources of most state environmental agencies are limited, the challenges facing the TMDL program are obviously substantial.
2

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

2-5

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2.3.4 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Nonpoint Pollution Program Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources ( NR) 151 Runoff Management The WDNR, believing that the top down technology-based regulatory program of NR 151 would result in the most cost effective and equitable area-wide water quality improvement, believes that a third party TMDL effort would only add to the requirements of NR 151. The NR 151 regulation has the following purpose: This chapter establishes runoff pollution performance standards for nonagricultural facilities and transportation facilities and performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural facilities and practices designed to achieve water quality standards as required by s. 281.16 (2) and (3), Stats. This chapter also specifies a process for the development and dissemination of department technical standards to implement the nonagricultural performance standards as required by s. 281.16 (2) (b), Stats. If these performance standards and prohibitions do not achieve water quality standards, this chapter specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in conformance with s. NR 151.004. As noted in the above excerpt of the NR 151 regulation, the regulation makes the assumption that if these standards and prohibitions do not meet water quality standards, the chapter specifies how the department may develop targeted performance standards in conformance with s. NR 151.004. The language of NR 151.004 is as follows: For some areas, implementation of the statewide performance standards and prohibitions in this chapter may not be sufficient to achieve water quality standards. In those cases, the department shall determine if a specific waterbody will not attain water quality standards after substantial implementation of the performance standards and prohibitions in this chapter, using actual or predicted modeling or monitoring. If the department finds that water quality standards will not be attained using statewide performance standards and prohibitions but the implementation of targeted performance standards would attain water quality standards, the department shall promulgate the targeted performance standards by rule. Note: Pursuant to s. 281.16 (2) (a) and (3) (a), Stats., the performance standards shall be designed to meet state water quality standards. The position of the WDNR is that imposition of the NR 151 performance standards will be required in all cases in the state and, should the performance standards not result in the attainment of water quality standards, the WDNR would then promulgate targeted performance standards as noted in NR 151.004. The NR 151 standards never contemplated that water quality standards could be attained without the imposition of the uniform technology standards of NR 151, only that NR 151 was an essential starting point or minimum level of technology that would need to be applied to achieve water quality standards. 2.4 Pathway Decision Based on the results of the WQI planning project, the MMSDs technical team thought that there was a possibility that the outcome of the third party TMDL may result in a different technology plan and a different water quality improvement than the NR 151 performance standards. The technical team understood the WDNRs assertion that the TMDL could result in additional requirements over and above NR 151. The technical team suggested using scientific analysis to

2-6

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

contribute to a bottom up approach. The technical team based its idea on the analysis of existing water quality data in the watersheds studied during the WQI planning project. Also, the detailed water quality models developed during the WQI planning project were used to assess the impact of NR 151 on water quality. Two model runs were developed using identical assumptions except one model run assumed full implementation (urban measures only) of NR 151, and the second run assumed no implementation of NR 151. A further concern existed regarding the lack of a water quality standard for TSS in Wisconsin. The closest proxy that can be found is the United States Geological Service (USGS) reference concentration for TSS. This estimate was used by the WDNR as the basis for TSS TMDLs in other parts of the state. The reference concentration for TSS, based upon the USGS analysis of watersheds in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, was expressed as a median concentration of 17.2 mg/l.3 The existing year 2000 model run, as summarized in SEWRPCs RWQMPU, showed the following with regard to the existing condition model output:4 The RWQMPU water quality simulation model looked at 10 assessment points in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. None of the assessment points had median TSS concentrations that exceeded the USGS reference concentration TSS level of 17.2 mg/l. The average of all the medians was 4.9 mg/l TSS and the median values ranged from 3.8 to 6.5 mg/l TSS. The means averaged 11.7 mg/l TSS with a range from 7.7 to 20.1 mg/l TSS. One significant result of these water quality model runs was that the TSS concentrations in the Kinnickinnic River watershed under existing conditions were below the USGS reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l TSS as a median value. Appendix N of the RWQMPU also shows other water quality parameters studied, as well as the RWQMPU revised year 2020 baseline, the revised baseline with the MMSD action of a five-year level of protection (LOP) for SSOs, and the two RWQMPU conditions one, the conditions of the recommended plan and two, the extreme measures condition. This analysis shows that even with the extreme measures condition (implementation of many water quality improvement actions above and beyond NR 151 requirements), the concentration of TSS is not materially changed. The data on the existing water quality runs as well as the revised 2020 baseline with and without NR 151 are shown in Appendix 2B. The model runs shown are only for the MMSD assessment points, which are a subset of the RWQMPU assessment points and consist of two assessment points in the Kinnickinnic River. Table 2-1 shows the results of the model run on TSS with NR 151 and without NR 151. Note: To maintain consistency with the RWQMPU, referenced above, the preceding sections use existing to describe year 2000 data. Elsewhere in this WRP, the term baseline is used to indicate year 2000 pollutant loading and water quality data.

USGS, Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent Areas, Scientific Investigations Report 20065066 (2006) 4 SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning Report No. 50, Appendix N, Water Quality Summary Statistics for the Recommended Plan Tables (December 5, 2007)

2-7

Watershed Restoration Plan

TABLE 2-1

Kinnickinnic River

IMPACT OF NR 151 ON MODELED TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Revised 2020 Baseline (No NR 151) 4.7 13.0 343 4.7 11.8 347 Revised 2020 Baseline (W/ NR 151) 3.8 11.4 344 3.8 10.4 348

Watershed

Assessment Location

Measure Median Mean

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

Difference -0.9 -1.6 1 -0.9 -1.5 1

NR 151 Impact -18.9% -12.0% 0.2% -19.2% -12.4% 0.2%

Kinnickinnic River

RI-12

TSS Guideline Median Mean

Kinnickinnic River

RI-13

TSS Guideline

Notes: The no NR 151 data column is the revised 2020 baseline without simulated NR 151 impact, while the next column revised 2020 baseline is the same condition with NR 151 simulated impact. The TSS guideline was developed in the WQI as a measure to assess how many days the watersheds met the guideline to allow for comparison of alternatives since no TSS water quality standard exists.

The data show that NR 151 does improve TSS concentrations in a range from about 12% to 20% in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, but the median TSS concentrations are already well below the reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l. The impact of NR 151 on fecal coliform levels, as shown in Appendix 2B data, is insignificant as the improvement in the percent of time the standard is met in the typical year is no greater than 1% at any of the assessment points in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The most frequently exceeded water quality parameter analyzed for the WQI in the GMW was compliance with the existing fecal coliform water quality standards. Thus, based upon the data produced in the RWQMPU, the imposition of NR 151 will have essentially no impact on fecal coliform compliance. Information regarding fecal coliform pollution and actions that can help address it are provided in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Given this complex situation, including the fact that the WDNR was in the process of evaluating the NR 151 regulation and that the timetable for implementation of the regulation may be lengthened, the MMSD and the technical team decided to pursue a different path for the development of the detailed implementation plan for the WQI. This path, illustrated in Figure 23, was to develop a WRP instead of a third party TMDL. This effort was based upon the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.5 The effort mirrors the TMDL concept, but did not result in an actual TMDL or have the regulatory impact of a TMDL. This effort began in July 2008. The MMSD chose this route for the following reasons:

USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters, http://www.epa.gov/ owow/nps/watershed_handbook/, EPA 841-B-08-002 (March 2008)

2-8

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The steps are basically the same whether doing a TMDL or a plan that follows the CWA section 319 guidelines (section 319 plan). Many grant programs exist to facilitate the development of a section 319 plan. A section 319 plan produces estimates of load reductions and end points similar to what a TMDL would produce. The work product of a section 319 plan can eventually be revised and used as the basis for a TMDL. These plans do not have the regulatory impact of a TMDL; thus, they offer different pathways to get to watershed permits, trading, etc. Finally, the WDNR has already developed an innovative approach to watershed planning that does not require a TMDL called an Environmental Accountability Project (EAP). Although an EAP is not a viable option for the Kinnickinnic River watershed because of the complex water quality issues being addressed, it is an example of watershed planning that does not require a TMDL. Similar to the idea behind the development of the WRP, the WDNR and USEPA Region 5 have developed this approach, which avoids the need for a TMDL and the listing of stream segments on the state 303(d) list and affords the ability to use the EAP as the route to a watershed permit and eventually watershed-based FRAMEWORK FOR THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLANS trading.

SWWT

FIGURE 2-3: FRAMEWORK FOR THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

2-9

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

The development of a WRP that is based on a USEPA 319 plan has the benefit of allowing the plan to focus on bottom up planning while incorporating the water quality improvement benefits of a top down plan. In other words, the development of this type of WRP used water quality data and science to specifically target the water quality-based needs of the Kinnickinnic River watershed, but also incorporates the impacts of the top down implementation of uniform technology programs such as the NR 151 regulation. This type of plan not only realizes the water quality benefits of both types of planning approaches, it also addresses the concerns of a wide range of stakeholders, including communities, citizen groups, WDNR, USEPA, SEWRPC, and MMSD. 2.5 Development of the Watershed Restoration Plan 2.5.1 Overview This WRP represents the next step in the implementation of a science-based watershed improvement effort. This second-level planning effort builds upon the sound science, extensive data, and alternatives analysis of the WQI. The result of this work effort is this adaptive, phased WRP for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. This WRP contains the following: The characterization of the baseline conditions within the Kinnickinnic River watershed highlighting a few important planning considerations, including the following:
o o o

The watershed contains highly developed urban areas a critical consideration during implementation. The importance of identifying unknown sources of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed. The predominant role of nonpoint sources with respect to nutrient loading. However, the analysis also revealed the need to consider non-contact cooling water and the role of phosphate compounds in drinking water when identifying priority actions to curb nutrient loading. Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed. The critical habitat impairments identified herein help prioritize actions to improve habitat within the watershed.

The results of a collaborative stakeholder involvement effort that was based upon interaction with a newly formed partnership called the SWWT. This is a voluntary, nontaxing partnership of independent units of government, special purpose districts, agencies, organizations, and members at large that share common goals. These entities agreed to work collaboratively to achieve healthy and sustainable water resources throughout the GMW. Through the stakeholder input of the SWWT, three major focus areas emerged for the WRP: bacteria/public health, habitat and aesthetics, and nutrients/phosphorus. These focus areas reflect the linkage between water quality parameters and the way people use and enjoy the streams in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. An implementation strategy that focuses on priority actions that should take place in the near term to meet long-term water quality goals and provides direction for future actions.

2-10

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

An initial list of policy issues that may influence the implementation schedule and process. The policy issues should be prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy Committee as projects are considered for implementation. An important issue addressed during the development of this WRP was how to best integrate other ongoing watershed management efforts (e.g., recommendations in the RWQMPU and the 2020 FP, various nonpoint water quality improvements as a result of USEPAs Phase II stormwater requirements, and the impact of NR 151) with this effort. The technical team, along with input from the SWWT, developed an approach to build on the recommendations of the RWQMPU. Therefore, the recommendations from the RWQMPU, the 2020 FP, Phase II requirements and impacts of NR 151 were all included in the analysis. The goals from the RWQMPU were used as a starting point for the WRP. Although achieving these goals is not expected to meet water quality standards for all pollutants in all areas of the watershed, especially for fecal coliform, achieving them will provide a significant incremental step towards water quality and habitat improvement. A substantial amount of work will be required in the watershed to implement the recommended actions to meet these goals. Once these goals are met, additional work can be done to go beyond the RWQMPU goals. This is discussed below and in Chapter 8. The overall implementation strategy of the WRP is presented in Chapter 8. The implementation strategy incorporates adaptive management to identify and implement actions, monitor incremental progress toward achieving water quality and habitat improvements, and modify the actions as necessary. The recommended phasing strategy for implementation of this WRP is as follows: Phase 1- Completed and Committed Actions/Projects: The first phase in implementing this WRP includes identifying relevant actions or projects that have been recently completed and a recommendation to implement already committed projects and programs.As such, the technical analysis underpinning this WRP started with the baseline WQI water quality model and added in all the committed projects as of January 1, 2008 using the same approach taken for the WQI (see Appendix 4B for a description of the updates made to the WQI model). This phase represents recent progress and will continue approximately through the year 2015. Phase 2 Implement Identified Foundation Actions and Other Identified High Priority Actions: The second phase of adaptive implementation includes the implementation of the foundation actions and the other high priority actions identified in the RWQMPU and by the SWWT committees during the development of the WRP. This phase also represents progress in the years 2010 to about 2015. Phase 3 Full Implementation of the RWQMPU: The third phase of adaptive implementation of this WRP consists of full implementation of the RWQMPU recommendations. Depending on the monitoring results of the first two phases, these actions could include more widespread implementation of the same or modified actions or they could include most of the remaining elements contained in the RWQMPU (medium- and low-priority actions) and the additional actions identified through the development of the WRP. These actions are discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this WRP. An emphasis would be placed on the controls that are determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during

2-11

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Phases 1 and 2. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase would represent progress in the years 2016 to about 2020. It is anticipate that Phase 3 would result in meeting the water quality and habitat improvement goals presented in the RWQMPU and discussed in Chapter 3 of this WRP. Phase 3 is not presented further in this WRP because the details of this phase will depend upon the results of Phase 1 and 2. Phase 4 Enhanced Level of Controls: The final fourth phase of adaptive implementation of this WRP consists of an enhanced level of controls to further improve water quality or habitat beyond the goals established by the RWQMPU. Depending on the monitoring results of the first three phases, these actions could include more widespread implementation of the same or modified actions. An emphasis would be placed on the controls that are determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during Phases 1, 2 and 3. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase could overlap with Phase 3 and could represent progress in the years 2016 to 2020 or beyond. Phase 4 is not yet developed nor presented in this chapter because this phase will depend upon the results of Phases 1, 2 and 3. Phase 5 Fully Meet Water Quality Standards: The final phase of implementation could be the adoption of all controls necessary to fully meet achievable water quality standards, whether those are the existing standards, site-specific standards, or future changes in water quality standards. This phase could occur after 2020. 2.5.2 Detailed Tasks The tasks listed below served as the technical basis for developing this WRP to meet water quality standards and protect water resources in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The tasks are organized according to the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. The nine elements are the following: 1) Identify causes of impairment and pollutant sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. This information was used to develop a conceptual plan for the Kinnickinnic River WRP. 2) Estimate the load reductions expected from management measures. 3) Describe the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions, including a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed. 4) Estimate the amount of technical and financial assistance needed, the associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan. 5) Develop an information and education component to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage early and continued participation. 6) Develop a schedule for implementing the identified management measures. 7) Describe interim measurable milestones for determining whether the management measures or other control actions are being implemented.

2-12

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

8) Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards. 9) Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time. The innovative watershed planning effort conducted during the development of this WRP included the following: A series of workshops conducted with the SWWT committees, which included representatives from the WDNR, to obtain their input on the scope of the WRP effort (to finalize the pollutants to be assessed and to confirm the water quality targets to be used for pollutants without numeric criteria). The development of an adaptive management and adaptive implementation approach that will allow proposed controls to be implemented, monitored, refined, and revisited so that effective implementation of the WRP will be achieved. Analysis of management measures consisting of facilities, programs, operational improvements and policies (FPOPs). The prioritization from the RWQMPU was used as the basis and was revised, as necessary, based on input from the SWWT committees. The management measures were prioritized based on their potential to result in the greatest improvement to water quality and habitat. The FPOPs identified as high priority actions were organized by assessment points, which generally correspond to subwatersheds. The development of an implementation strategy that includes guidance regarding the implementation process, implementation schedule, potential funding sources, identified policy issues and monitoring. 2.6 Summary This Kinnickinnic River WRP focuses on nonpoint source controls and the management of polluted stormwater runoff. This plan builds upon initiatives over the past 30 years that were directed primarily at controlling point source pollution through the implementation of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program and MMSDs Overflow Reduction Plan (Point Source Plan), which will be completed by 2010. This WRP represents a bottom-up approach and includes the regulatory actions required under NR 151 and recognizes the importance of addressing many potential nonpoint pollution sources as well as working across political or jurisdictional lines. Throughout the development of this WRP, the goal was to identify actions that would improve water quality in the most cost effective way. As this WRP evolves and is implemented in the future, regulatory and technical issues will continue to be resolved through the collaborative efforts of all parties involved in the Kinnickinnic River watershed restoration planning effort.

2-13

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

APPENDIX 2A INTEGRATED WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING MEETING AGENDA

2-14

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-15

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-16

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

2-17

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

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

2-18

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Fecal Coliform Assessment Location Revised 2020 Baseline (No NR 151)

608 4,999 306 261 215 75% 322 3,012 137 148 110 87% 750 5,049 368 244 216 75% 444 3,031 213 138 111 87%

Watershed

Measure
Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (Swimming season) Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) Longterm Geometric Mean Mean Median Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month Longterm Geometric Mean (Swimming season) Mean (Swimming season) Median (Swimming season) Variance standard - Geomean not to exceed (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season) Variance standard - Less than 10% of all samples / month (Swimming season)

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

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

560 4,885 295 266 215 75% 295 2,978 116 148 109 86% 702 4,942 361 250 215 75% 416 2,999 195 140 110 86%

Difference
-48 -114 -11 5 0 0% -26 -34 -21 1 -1 -1% -48 -107 -7 6 -1 0% -27 -32 -19 2 -1 -1%

NR 151 Impact
-7.9% -2.3% -3.5% 1.8% -0.2% -8.2% -1.1% -15.6% 0.3% -0.8%

Kinnickinnic River

RI-12

-6.4% -2.1% -2.0% 2.6% -0.5% -6.2% -1.1% -8.7% 1.7% -0.9%

Kinnickinnic River

RI-13

Note: Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.

2-19

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Watershed

Assessment Location
Median Mean

Measure
mg / L mg / L

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Revised 2020 Baseline Units / Criteria (No NR 151)
11.4 11.3 365 100% 11.5 11.4 365 100%

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

11.4 11.3 365 100% 11.5 11.4 365 100%

Difference
0.0 0.0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0 0%

NR 151 Impact
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Variance standard Kinnickinnic River RI-12 Variance standard Median Mean Variance standard Kinnickinnic River RI-13 Variance standard

Days met (2 mg/L) % of time standard is met mg / L mg / L Days met (2 mg/L) % of time standard is met

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.

Watershed

Assessment Location
Median Mean

Measure

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Revised 2020 Baseline Units / Criteria (No NR 151)
mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) mg / L mg / L Days met (100 mg/L) 4.7 13.0 343 4.7 11.8 347

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

3.8 11.4 344 3.8 10.4 348

Difference
-0.9 -1.6 1 -0.9 -1.5 1

NR 151 Impact
-18.9% -12.0% 0.2% -19.2% -12.4% 0.2%

Kinnickinnic River

RI-12

TSS Guideline Median Mean

Kinnickinnic River

RI-13

TSS Guideline

2-20

Watershed Restoration Plan

Kinnickinnic River

Total Nitrogen (TN) Assessment Location

Median Kinnickinnic River RI-12 Mean Median Kinnickinnic River RI-13 Mean

Watershed

Measure
mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L

Units / Criteria

Revised 2020 Baseline (No NR 151)

1.19 1.36 1.18 1.32

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

1.13 1.30 1.12 1.26

Difference
-0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06

NR 151 Impact
-5.7% -4.2% -5.6% -4.3%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Assessment Location

Median Mean TP Planning Guideline Kinnickinnic River RI-12 TP Planning Guideline Median Mean TP Planning Guideline Kinnickinnic River RI-13 TP Planning Guideline

Watershed

Measure
mg / L mg / L

Units

Revised 2020 Baseline (No NR 151)

0.167 0.201 33 24% 0.160 0.191 45 27%

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

0.164 0.198 37 25% 0.157 0.188 50 27%

Difference
-0.003 -0.003 4 1% -0.003 -0.003 5 1%

NR 151 Impact
-1.9% -1.7% 12.8%

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

-2.0% -1.7% 12.0%

Copper Assessment Location

Median Kinnickinnic River RI-12 Mean Median Kinnickinnic River RI-13 Mean

Watershed

Measure
mg / L mg / L mg / L mg / L

Units

Revised 2020 Baseline (No NR 151)

0.0020 0.0043 0.0020 0.0044

Revised 2020 Baseline (With NR 151)

0.0017 0.0040 0.0017 0.0040

Difference
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

NR 151 Impact
-13.6% -7.6% -13.2% -7.4%

2-21