PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1

SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 316

A RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED

Chapter VI

RECOMMENDED PLAN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Development of Recommendations to Improve Water Quality Relationship to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan As noted previously in this report, the Root River watershed restoration plan is a second-level plan that builds on the framework established under the 2007 SEWRPC regional water quality management plan update (RWQMPU) for the Greater Milwaukee watersheds.1 Chapter II of this watershed restoration plan summarizes 1) the recommendations of the RWQMPU as they relate to the Root River watershed and 2) the status of implementation of those recommendations within the watershed. The following paragraphs summarize the water quality modeling analyses conducted under the RWQMPU, and describe how the modeling results for the Root River component of the recommended RWQMPU can be applied directly to estimate water quality improvements that would be expected from implementation of the recommended watershed restoration plan set forth in this chapter. Water Quality Modeling Under the RWQMPU, a comprehensive, watershed-based, calibrated and validated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HSPF continuous simulation model was developed to simulate pollutant loads and instream water quality conditions in the streams of the Root River watershed. The HSPF model is particularly suited to modeling water quality conditions in the Root River watershed because it:

Can be used on watersheds with both rural and urban land uses

Can be used to simulate all of the constituents of interest for this project

Allows long-term continuous simulations to predict hydrologic and water quality variability

Provides adequate temporal resolution to facilitate a direct comparison to water quality standards

Simulates surface runoff and subsurface flows

Simulates receiving stream water quality processes in addition to land surface loads

_____________ 1SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007 and Amendment to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, May 2013.

2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Under the RWQMPU, the HSPF model was applied to estimate pollutant loads and instream pollutant concentrations over a 10-year simulation period representing meteorological conditions from 1988 through 1997.2 The HSPF model of the Root River watershed was applied to represent then-existing year 2000 land use conditions and also planned year 2020 (baseline) land use conditions. Water quality conditions were simulated and evaluated at 22 assessment points along the Root River mainstem and tributaries. As shown on Map IV-1 in Chapter IV of this report, 15 of the assessment points were selected for establishing the outflow locations from the assessment areas established under this watershed restoration plan. Water Quality Results of the RWQMPU Modeling Analyses Under the RWQMPU, alternative plans were developed to represent different approaches to improving water quality under planned 2020 land use conditions through combinations of point pollution source controls and implementation of agricultural and urban best management practices and green infrastructure. Three of the four pollutants identified for abatement under this watershed restoration plan—total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria—were modeled under the RWQMPU along with several other pollutants.3 The pertinent water quality indicators used to compare the plans are set forth in Table VI-WQM-1. The RWQMPU alternative plans were evaluated as to their ability to cost-effectively meet a set of planning objectives related primarily to water quality management, land use development, and outdoor recreation and open space preservation. The recommended RWQMPU plan was synthesized from the most effective components of the alternatives, and it consists of a combination of point source controls and urban and rural nonpoint source controls. The USEPA HSPF water quality model developed to represent recommended plan conditions explicitly accounted for the following rural and urban nonpoint source pollution control measures:

Reducing soil erosion from cropland to the tolerable soil loss rate as determined by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

Providing six months of manure storage

Establishing riparian buffers with a minimum width of 75 feet on each side of streams

Converting 10 percent of existing cropland to wetland or prairie conditions

Expanding oversight of private onsite wastewater treatment systems

Implementing nonagricultural (urban) performance standards established by the State of Wisconsin in Chapter NR 151, “Runoff Management,” of the Wisconsin Administrative Code

Establishing coordinated programs to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to storm sewer systems and to control urban-sourced pathogens that are harmful to human health

Infiltrating residential roof drain runoff in rain gardens, or similar green infrastructure practices

_____________ 2That simulation period was selected because it was determined to be representative of the long-term precipitation statistics as measured at the National Weather Service General Mitchell International airport weather station for the 63-year period from 1940 through 2002.

3The fourth pollutant considered under this planning effort is chloride. Chloride loads and concentrations were not computed by the RWQMPU water quality model.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 3

These measures are also generally included in the recommended watershed restoration plan described in this report chapter. Thus, the degree to which implementation of the watershed restoration plan described below would be expected to improve instream water quality can be inferred from the comprehensive water quality modeling results set forth in the report documenting the regional water quality management plan for the greater Milwaukee watersheds4 and briefly summarized in the next paragraph. Implementation of the recommended RWQMPU plan, and of the recommended watershed restoration plan which is set forth in this chapter and which adds detail to the RWQMPU recommendations, would be expected to result in significant reductions in instream mean and median concentrations of total suspended solids5 and total phosphorus6 and in mean and geometric mean concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria. Relative to then-existing year 2000 conditions, implementation of the recommended plan would be expected to result in significant improvements in the levels of compliance with the geometric mean standard for fecal coliform bacteria, and generally more modest increases in the level of compliance with the single sample standard along the mainstem of the Root River and many tributaries.7 At the time that the RWQMPU was prepared, the State of Wisconsin had not promulgated instream water quality criteria for total phosphorus. In the absence of a regulatory criterion, a planning standard of 0.1 mg/l was applied. Following completion of the RWQMPU, the State adopted phosphorus criteria as set forth in Chapter NR 102, “Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters,” of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Chapter NR 102 establishes the applicable total phosphorus criterion for the Root River and tributaries as a concentration of 0.075 milligrams per liter (mg/l) (see Table IV-17 in Chapter IV of this report). The degree to which the recommended RWQMPU would be expected to meet the new regulatory 0.075 mg/l water quality criterion was assessed when subsequent water quality planning work to evaluate the possible effects of climate change on water quality conditions in the greater Milwaukee watersheds was undertaken by SEWRPC in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-M) School of Freshwater Sciences, the UW-M College of Engineering and Mechanics, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Climatic Research, and Tetra Tech, with funding

_____________ 4SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, op. cit., and Amendment to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, May 2013 (http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pr/pr-050_part-2_water_quality_plan_for_greater_mke_watersheds.pdf).

5See Table V-4 in Chapter V of this report.

6See Table V-3 in Chapter V of this report.

7Very large reductions in fecal coliform bacteria loads would be needed to achieve a high level of compliance with water quality criteria. While implementation of plan recommendations would be expected to achieve significant reductions in instream bacteria concentrations, those reductions would not always be sufficient to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria is considered to be an indicator of potential threats to human health from disease causing pathogens and also from pharmaceuticals and personal care products that may be associated with human sewage; however, the existence of an actual threat depends on the source of the bacteria. Thus, a significant focus of the recommended plan is on controlling pathogens and pharmaceuticals and personal care products from human sources through the recommended illicit discharge detection and elimination program. As a result, the recommended plan employs an effective approach that focuses on reducing sources of pathogens and pharmaceuticals and personal care products that are most likely to be threats to human health, rather than on indiscriminately reducing fecal coliform bacteria loads. Through adopting that approach, the recommended plan would be expected to achieve greater water quality benefits, thereby better protecting human health and aquatic organisms, than might be inferred from the level of reduction in bacteria concentrations without consideration of the source of the bacteria.

4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.8 The water quality modeling results representing implementation of those components of the recommended RWQMPU that relate to the Root River watershed, and also, as described above, the elements of the recommended watershed restoration plan, indicate the following anticipated levels of compliance with water quality criteria:

Along the mainstem of the Root River (assessment points RT-1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 17, 18, 21, and 22), 1) the total phosphorus water quality criterion of 0.075 mg/l would be expected to be met from about 55 to 85 percent of the time during an average year with the degree of compliance decreasing from upstream to downstream. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met from about 65 to 85 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September) with the degree of compliance generally higher in the upper reaches of the River. The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on from 18 to 71 days, depending on location along the River, during an average 153-day May through September recreation season.

For Whitnall Park Creek (assessment points RT-5 and 7), the total phosphorus water quality criterion would be expected to be met about 75 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 70 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on from 34 to 41 days, depending on location along the River, during an average 153-day recreation season.

For Tess Corners Creek (assessment point RT-6), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met about 80 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 76 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 54 days during an average 153-day recreation season.

For the East Branch of the Root River (assessment point RT-9), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met about 79 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 79 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 59 days during an average 153-day recreation season.

For the West Branch of the Root River Canal (assessment points RT-11, 12, and 13), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met from about 30 to 60 percent of the time during an average year. The degree of compliance increases from upstream to downstream. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met from about 75 to 80 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 62 to 90 days, depending on location along the stream, during an average 153-day recreation season.

For the East Branch of the Root River Canal (assessment points RT-14 and 15), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met from about 60 to 65 percent of the time during an average year. The degree of compliance increases from upstream to downstream. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met from about 80 to 85 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion

_____________ 8S. McLellan, H. Bravo, and M. Hahn, with contributions from K. Kratt and J. Butcher, “Climate change risks and impacts on urban coastal water resources in the great lakes, October 29, 2013.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 5

of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 109 to 126 days, depending on location along the stream, during an average 153-day recreation season.

For the Root River Canal (assessment point RT-16), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met about 65 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 75 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 66 days during an average 153-day recreation season.

For Ives Grove Ditch (assessment point RT-19), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met from about 15 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 86 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 147 days during an average 153-day recreation season.

For Hoods Creek (assessment point RT-20), the total phosphorus criterion would be expected to be met from about 30 percent of the time during an average year. The single sample fecal coliform bacteria criterion of 400 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met about 80 percent of the time during an average recreation season (May through September). The geometric mean criterion of 200 cells per 100 ml would be expected to be met on 138 days during an average 153-day recreation season.

The State of Wisconsin has not established regulatory water quality criteria for total suspended sediment, so levels of compliance cannot be assessed, but the potential for significant reductions in total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations under the recommended plan relative to then-existing year 2000 conditions are indicated by the modeling results. The load reductions required to achieve recommended RWQMPU conditions, and which have been adopted as reduction targets under this watershed restoration plan, are set forth in Tables V-1, V-2, and V-Fec-A in Chapter V of this report. Quantification of Load Reductions under the Recommended Watershed Restoration Plan This watershed restoration plan has multiple objectives that are reflected in the four focus areas related to water quality, habitat, recreation, and flooding. Thus, consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the plan is designed to address the physical, chemical, and biological health of the watershed and its water resources. The plan is intended to provide a guide to improving water quality in the watershed over a five-year period; however, because of 1) the relatively large size of the watershed, 2) the long time scales needed for reductions in pollutant loads to be measurable in a complex natural system, and 3) limitations on the financial resources available for plan implementation, the plan will realistically be implemented over a time period longer than five years. The plan recommendations include 1) specifically-identified measures to advance the achievement of overall plan objectives in the near term9 and 2) somewhat more broadly targeted measures that would be implemented as opportunities arise over a longer time frame. The effects of various plan recommendations on reducing pollutant loads to the waterbodies in the watershed are addressed in several ways:

_____________ 9These specific recommendations largely were identified during plan Advisory Group and stakeholder meetings held throughout the duration of the planning process, but particularly during the December 4, 2013, stakeholder meeting. The objective of that meeting was to obtain specific project ideas from residents of the watershed, representatives of the municipalities within the watershed, and nongovernmental organizations with interests in the watershed.

6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

For specific priority water quality improvement projects, the total suspended solids, total phosphorus,

and fecal coliform bacteria load reductions are estimated where feasible, enabling those reductions to be compared to the RWQMPU/watershed restoration plan target reductions set forth in Tables V-1, V-2, and V-Fec-A in Chapter V of this report.

Certain plan recommendations to improve water quality may be applicable to targeted stream reaches or areas of the watershed, but are not specific enough for their load reduction potential to be practically quantified individually. However, those recommendations represent refinements of the recommendations from the RWQMPU, and their effects on reducing pollutant loads and instream concentrations are specifically represented within the USEPA HSPF water quality model developed under the RWQMPU. Thus, the potential water quality improvement effects of implementing those actions have been quantified at a more-detailed level than by simply estimating load reductions because the loads have been combined with streamflows and routed through the watershed stream network, producing pollutant concentrations at multiple locations, which can readily be compared with regulatory water quality criteria.

Other plan recommendations, particularly some of those targeted to habitat improvement may be primarily directed to improving physical and biological conditions in the watershed consistent with the CWA, and, while in many cases they may produce ancillary water quality benefits, such benefits may not be directly quantifiable in terms of a pollutant load reduction.

Recommendations to Reduce Stormwater Runoff Pollution Recommendations to Reduce Point Source Pollution The recommendations of the 2007 SEWRPC RWQMPU as they relate to point source pollution in the Root River watershed were reviewed (see Chapter II of this report) and reevaluated under this watershed restoration planning effort. Based on that review and reevaluation, which included consideration of the additional water quality monitoring data collected since the RWQMPU was issued and of recommendations that have already been implemented, the current applicability of the recommendations of the RWQMPU was confirmed. Thus, the following RWQMPU recommendations are reiterated under this plan:

1. That unrefined sanitary sewer service areas in the Root River watershed be refined.10

2. That the City of Racine and the Village of Union Grove maintain and operate wastewater treatment plants.

3. That the municipalities in the watershed construct and maintain local sewer systems. In Milwaukee County, this recommendation applies to all of the municipalities that are wholly or partially located in the watershed all of which are served by MMSD. In Racine County, this recommendation applies to the City of Racine; the Villages of Mt. Pleasant, Sturtevant, and Union Grove; the Caledonia East and West Utility Districts;11 the Mt. Pleasant Utility District No. 1; and the Yorkville Sewer Utility District No. 1. In

_____________ 10Most of the sanitary sewer service areas within the Root River watershed have been refined. Areas served by MMSD in the Cities of Greenfield, Milwaukee, and West Allis and the Villages of Greendale and Hales Corners and a portion of the Yorkville Sewer Utility District’s service area have not been refined.

11The Caledonia West Utility District includes the Caddy Vista sewer service area, which is served by MMSD.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 7

Waukesha County, this recommendation applies to the Cities of Muskego and New Berlin, both of which are served by MMSD.

4. That detailed facilities planning be undertaken to establish what new conveyance, pumping, and storage facilities would be needed to provide service to the areas in the Villages of Caledonia and Mt. Pleasant that were added to the Racine and environs planned sewer service area in 2007.12

5. That, when the Yorkville Sewer Utility District No. 1 wastewater treatment plant reaches the end of its useful life, the entire Yorkville sewer service area be connected to the sewerage system tributary to the Racine wastewater treatment plant and the Yorkville treatment plant be abandoned.13

6. That the municipalities operating local sewerage systems evaluate the need to reduce clearwater infiltration and inflow into sewers and implement Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) programs.14

7. That discharges from all points of sewerage flow relief in sewerage systems be eliminated.

8. That operation of the privately-owned wastewater treatment plant that serves Fonk’s Mobile Home Park in the Town of Yorkville be continued, that this plant be upgraded as necessary, and that the level of treatment be formulated as part of the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permitting process.

9. That wastewater treatment plant and industrial discharges to surface waters continue to be regulated through the WPDES program, with effluent concentrations of pollutants being controlled to acceptable levels on a case-by-case basis through the operation of the WPDES.15

_____________ 12SEWRPC, Amendment to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan – Villages of Caledonia and Mt. Pleasant, June 2007.

13Based on population and sewage flow information available at the time, the RWQMPU concluded that this would be likely to happen sometime after the year 2020.

14CMOM is a program initiated by USEPA that provides a framework for municipalities to identify and incorporate widely accepted wastewater industry practices in order to better manage, operate, and maintain collections systems; investigate capacity constrained areas of the collection system; and respond to sanitary sewer overflow events. MMSD rules require that the communities within its service area implement CMOM programs. Section NR 210.23, “Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance Programs,” of the Wisconsin Administrative Code requires that units of government that have WPDES permits for operation of sewerage systems and/or wastewater treatment plants implement CMOM programs by August 1, 2016.

15As described in Chapter V of this report: 1) disinfection of wastewater effluent is required only where the WDNR has made a determination that the discharge of wastewater poses a risk to human and animal health, 2) the WPDES permits for the three wastewater treatment plants in the watershed do not require disinfection of effluent, and 3) an evaluation by the SEWRPC staff concluded that adding disinfection to the treatment processes at the three wastewater treatment plants that discharge to surface waters of the Root River watershed would have only a small effect on concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria in the streams receiving discharges from these plants and on downstream waters and the expense of such modifications could be considerable. Therefore, consistent with the current WPDES permits, it is not recommended that the three plants disinfect their effluent.

8 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Recommended Water Quality Monitoring Plan Monitoring and information collection programs are invaluable at helping planners, local officials, agency staff, and community members better understand what is taking place within the water resources of the Root River watershed. These programs are necessary in order to assess and evaluate conditions within the watershed. They can provide information to determine where management efforts should focus, help better target management programs, and help determine project feasibility. When conducted on an ongoing basis monitoring programs can reveal trends and changes in watershed conditions, detect new and emerging water quality problems, assess long-term progress in plan implementation, and provide data for evaluating the success of management projects. At a conceptual level, future monitoring in the Root River watershed needs to address two different questions.

1. What are the conditions in the watershed?

2. What is the status of implementation of the recommendations of this watershed restoration plan?

Addressing the first question will require ongoing water quality monitoring within the watershed. This monitoring should encompass a number of indicators, including, but not limited to, water chemistry, stream flow, fecal indicator bacteria, and indicators of biological conditions. Several organizations are presently conducting this type of monitoring within the watershed. Addressing the second question will require keeping track of all the projects that are undertaken in the Root River watershed that implement the recommendations of this plan. This monitoring will allow for the assessment and evaluation of the state of implementation of recommended measures. It will also avoid duplication of effort and ensure that all efforts are conducted in ways that maximize their positive effects on conditions in the watershed. It should be noted that many particular monitoring activities may provide data that address more than one of the focus areas of this plan. For example, monitoring of fish and macroinvertebrate communities in the watershed provide direct measures of both the state of water quality and the state of fishing-related recreational opportunities in the watershed, as well as indirect measures of the state of the habitat. Similarly, measurements of suspended solids or turbidity provide both direct measures of water quality conditions and indirect measures of habitat conditions. In view of this, the recommendations related to monitoring will be presented by type of monitoring and program, rather than by individual focus issue. Water Quality Monitoring Evaluation of Existing Water Quality Monitoring and Data Collection Programs Considerable effort is currently being expended on water quality monitoring in the Root River watershed. During the period from 2010 through 2012, the most recent period examined by this plan, several agencies conducted monitoring in the watershed. Table VI-Mon-1 lists and Map VI-1 shows the stations regularly sampled as part of these monitoring efforts and types of water quality indicators sampled at each station. MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) currently monitors water chemistry and bacteria at six sampling stations along the mainstem of the Root River in Milwaukee County. One to two samples are collected at these stations each month, with more frequent sampling occurring during warmer months. In addition, as part of the MMSD Corridor Study, the District in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects biological samples, including fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae, at two sampling stations along the mainstem of the Root River at about three-year intervals. The Corridor Study also includes assessments of aquatic toxicity. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The USGS monitors stream flow at four continuous recording stream gaging stations in the watershed, three along the mainstem of the Root River and one along the Root River Canal. During the period 2010 through 2012, the USGS also conducted water chemistry monitoring related to specific short-duration projects at three additional sites along the mainstem of the Root River.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 9

CITY OF RACINE HEALTH DEPARTMENT The City of Racine Health Department (RHD) conducts regular sampling for water chemistry and bacteria at 18 sampling stations—nine along the mainstem of the Root River and nine along seven tributary streams. Samples were collected at these stations twice per week. This sampling was conducted specifically in support of this watershed restoration planning effort. In cooperation with Racine County, the RHD also monitored fecal indicator bacteria concentrations at two stations on Quarry Lake. The RHD also conducted additional sampling at several stations. Some of this sampling was related to previous studies. Other sampling was conducted to address specific questions. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) periodically conducts biological sampling in the watershed. In 2011, it conducted macroinvertebrate surveys at 42 sampling stations in the watershed—14 along the mainstem of the Root River and 28 along 16 tributary streams. During 2011, the WDNR conducted fisheries surveys at 12 sampling stations—seven along the mainstem of the Root River and five along four tributary streams. In addition to this monitoring, the WDNR monitors populations of trout and salmon at the Root River Steelhead Facility. The WDNR also samples water chemistry along the mainstem of the Root River at Johnson Park. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EXTENSION’S (UWEX) WATER ACTION VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM (WAV) AND WISCONSIN CITIZEN LAKE MONITORING NETWORK During the period 2010 through 2012, volunteers from the University of Wisconsin-Extension’s (UWEX) Water Action Volunteers (WAV) Program conducted water chemistry and biological sampling at four stations along the mainstem of the Root River. The Kelly Lakes Association, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Citizen Lake Monitoring Network, monitored Upper Kelly Lake for Secchi depth and water chemistry. MISCELLANEOUS SINGLE-PURPOSE MONITORING EFFORTS In addition to monitoring programs described above, several one-time monitoring projects were conducted in the watershed that examined fairly specific issues. Examples of these include a study that surveyed the mainstem of the Root River for the presence and abundance of freshwater mussels, a highway-based survey of invasive terrestrial plants, and a survey of physical conditions in Hoods Creek and a portion of the mainstem of the Root River. More information on these efforts is presented in Chapter IV of this report. Identification of Additional Monitoring Needs The 2007 SEWRPC regional water quality management plan update for the greater Milwaukee watersheds (RWQMPU) included an evaluation of the existing water quality monitoring and data collection programs in the watersheds within its study area, including the Root River watershed.16 This evaluation was subsequently refined for the Root River watershed in a SEWRPC Staff Memorandum developed during this watershed restoration planning process.17 These evaluations identified several data gaps in the water quality monitoring data available for the Root River watershed. The following data gaps were noted in these evaluations:

Most of the water quality monitoring conducted within the watershed had focused on the mainstem of the Root River.

Relatively few samples were collected from tributary streams and few tributary streams had been sampled. Between 2005 and 2009, samples were collected from only three tributary streams.

_____________ 16SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, op. cit.

17SEWRPC Staff Memorandum, Water Quality Sampling in the Root River Watershed: 1964-2009, April 28, 2010.

10 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

The mainstem of the Root River included a 12-mile section from County Line Road and Johnson Park in which no sampling had been conducted during the period from 1998 through 2009.

Relatively few samples had been collected during winter months.

The monitoring conducted during the development of this watershed restoration plan made substantial progress toward filling these data gaps. During the period from 2010 through 2013, regular monitoring was conducted at two stations within the 12-mile-long unmonitored section of the mainstem of the Root River and at stations along seven tributary streams. Winter sampling was conducted at several mainstem and tributary sampling stations, although not as frequently as it was during other seasons. These efforts have improved our knowledge of conditions in the watershed.

Despite the considerable effort described above, the following gaps still remain in the water quality data set for the Root River watershed:

Several tributary streams are not routinely monitored. This is especially the case in the portions of the watershed in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties.

Few monitoring data are available for most of the lakes and ponds in the watershed.

The amount of sampling conducted in the winter has not been sufficient to determine the extent of the problems posed by chloride concentrations in surface waters of the Root River watershed or the nature of the causes of these problems.

Recommendations Regarding Water Quality Monitoring It is important to assess the condition of water quality, biological communities, and habitat in the watershed and determine whether these conditions are improving or deteriorating. It is, therefore, important to establish and maintain a robust monitoring program to monitor and assess conditions within the watershed. Such a monitoring program should integrate and coordinate the use of the monitoring resources of multiple agencies and groups, generate monitoring data that are scientifically defensible and relevant to the decision-making process, and manage and report data in ways that are meaningful and understandable to decision makers and other affected parties. This watershed restoration plan recommends maintaining the existing monitoring network and expanding monitoring in the watershed to continue to fill data gaps. Toward these ends, the plan includes the following recommendations for water quality monitoring: MAINTENANCE OF CURRENT MONITORING ACTIVITIES It is recommended that current monitoring activities in the Root River watershed continue and the efforts of the agencies conducting these activities be supported and maintained. This includes several specific recommendations:

1. The current USGS stream gaging program should be continued in the watershed. Stage and discharge monitoring should continue at all four of the currently active gages.

2. The MMSD Root River survey monitoring program should be continued. Monitoring of water chemistry and fecal indicator bacteria should continue at all six of the District’s existing sampling stations. As a minimum sampling frequency, the current sampling schedule in which samples are collected two times a month during summer months and monthly during the remaining months of the year should be continued.

3. The joint MMSD/USGS biological and toxicity sampling program should be continued in the watershed. Sampling should be conducted at the existing two sampling stations at three-year intervals.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 11

4. The City of Racine Health Department’s Root River stream monitoring program should be continued in the watershed. Monitoring of water chemistry and fecal indicator bacteria should continue at all 18 of the Department’s current sampling stations. At the nine sampling stations located within the City of Racine, samples should be collected weekly, rather than the current twice per week schedule. At the nine sampling stations located outside of the City, samples should be collected every two weeks, rather than the current twice per week schedule.

5. The monitoring of fecal indicator bacteria at the beach along Quarry Lake should be continued. Monitoring of fecal indicator bacteria should continue at both sampling sites along the beach twice weekly during the swimming season.

6. The WDNR’s biological monitoring in the Root River watershed should be continued. Monitoring of macroinvertebrates should continue at the 42 sampling stations monitored in the Department’s 2011 survey and monitoring of fish should continue at the 12 sampling stations monitored in the 2011 survey. At a minimum, sampling should occur every three-to-five years. In order to accomplish this amount of biological monitoring, consideration should be given to sampling sites on a rotating basis, with one third to one fifth of sites being sampled each year. The WDNR’s monitoring of trout and salmon populations at the Root River Steelhead Facility should be continued.

7. The WDNR’s water chemistry monitoring at the Johnson Park sampling stations should be continued. Sampling should continue to be conducted at this site on a monthly basis.

8. The UWEX WAV program’s water quality and biological monitoring in the Root River watershed should be continued. Monitoring of water chemistry should continue at the four sampling stations. At a minimum, sampling for macroinvertebrates should be conducted at each station annually in the fall.

9. The Kelly Lakes Association’s monitoring of Upper Kelly Lake through the Wisconsin Citizen Lake Network should be continued. At a minimum, Secchi depth should be monitored every two weeks during the months May through September and monthly during other months when the Lake is free of ice and total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a should be monitored annually during the period when the Lake is thermally stratified.

Table VI-Mon-2 summarizes the monitoring stations at which it is recommended that existing monitoring efforts be continued. EXPANSION OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES It was previously noted that several gaps still remain in the water quality data set for the Root River watershed. Several tributary streams are not routinely monitored, and few monitoring data are available for most of the lakes and ponds in the watershed. It is recommended that the water quality monitoring network in the Root River watershed be expanded to fill these data gaps. This includes the following specific recommendations which are also summarized on Map VI-Mon-1:

1. At least one water quality monitoring station should be established on each of the following streams which are not currently being sampled for water chemistry and bacteria: 50th Road Tributary, Caledonia Branch, Crayfish Creek, Dale Creek, East Branch Root River, Hale Creek, Ives Grove Ditch, Kilbournville Tributary, Oakwood Park Tributary, Oakwood Tributary, Scout Lake Tributary to Dale Creek, Tuckaway Creek, Union Grove Tributary, West Branch Root River, Wildcat Creek, and Yorkville Creek. Samples should be collected every two weeks and analyzed for water chemistry and fecal indicator bacteria.

2. At least two water quality monitoring stations should be established on each of the following streams which are not currently being sampled for water chemistry and bacteria: Ryan Creek, Tess

12 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Corners Creek, and Whitnall Park Creek. Samples should be collected every two weeks and analyzed for water chemistry and fecal indicator bacteria.

3. Two additional water quality monitoring stations should be established on each of the following streams. Samples should be collected every two weeks and analyzed for water chemistry and fecal indicator bacteria.

a. East Branch Root River Canal: One of these stations should be located upstream of the Fonk’s Mobile Home Park wastewater treatment plant.

b. Hoods Creek: One of these stations should be located upstream from the confluence with Ives Grove Ditch.

c. Husher Creek: One of these stations should be located upstream from the recently restored stream reach at the CTH G crossing.

d. West Branch Root River Canal: One of these stations should be located upstream of the Village of Union Grove wastewater treatment plant.

Agencies capable of conducting the recommended monitoring of water chemistry and bacteria at new stream stations as described in Recommendations 1 through 3 above include MMSD, the WDNR, the City of Racine Health Department, and the UWEX WAV Program. It should be noted that the implementation of the changes in sampling frequency recommended for the City of Racine Health Department’s existing stream sampling program would allow the Department to conduct the expanded stream sampling described above using about the same level of staff effort as required by their existing program because the recommended level of effort for data collection at the sites that have been recently monitored has been reduced somewhat.

4. Water quality monitoring stations should be established on each of the following lakes and ponds: Brittany Lake, Dumkes Lake, Koepmier Lake, Lower Kelly Lake, Monastery Lake, Mud Lake, Scout Lake, and Whitnall Park Pond. At a minimum, Secchi depth should be monitored every two weeks during the months May through September and monthly during other months when the lake or pond is free of ice. At a minimum total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a should be monitored annually during the period when the Lake is thermally stratified.

Monitoring of lakes and ponds could be conducted through the Wisconsin Citizen Lake Monitoring Network. Monitoring of Lower Kelly Lake could be conducted in cooperation with the Kelly Lakes Association. Monitoring of lakes and ponds in Milwaukee County Parks could be conducted by Parks Department staff or by volunteers from friends groups associated with the Parks.

5. Water quality monitoring at Quarry Lake should be expanded to include monitoring of Secchi depth every two weeks during the months May through September and monthly during other months when the lake is free of ice. At a minimum total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a should be monitored annually during the period when the Lake is thermally stratified.

The recommended limnological monitoring of Quarry Lake could be conducted by the City of Racine Health Department in conjunction with the bacteriological monitoring that the Department currently conducts.

6. Water quality monitoring in the Root River watershed should be expanded to include continuous monitoring with telemetry to automatically transfer the data. Two to four “real-time” stations should be established in the watershed. These should collect data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, flow, and stream stage at five-minute intervals 24 hours per day. In order to facilitate collection of stream flow and stage, these stations should be

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 13

located at the existing USGS stream gages, with highest priority being given to establishing stations along the mainstem of the Root River at W. Grange Avenue and W. Ryan Road.

The recommended continuous monitoring of water quality could be conducted by MMSD and the USGS at the W. Grange Avenue and W. Ryan Road gages as an expansion of their existing joint real-time monitoring program. Continuous monitoring of water quality could be conducted by USGS at the gage on the mainstem of the Root River below Horlick dam and at the gage on the Root River Canal at CTH G, perhaps in conjunction with local government cooperators.

7. The Root River watershed should be surveyed for freshwater mussels every 10 years. A standard protocol should be used to ensure the comparability of results among surveys.

Mussel surveys could be conducted by the WDNR or by a consultant. It is suggested that future surveys record and report the amount of time spent surveying each sample site. This information would allow for the computation of the catch per unit effort at each site which would make it possible to compare relative population sizes among sites.

8. Ambient environmental data should be collected or obtained from an appropriate source each time water quality samples are collected. Such data should include rainfall, flow rates (where representative data are readily available), and general weather observations.

Table VI-Mon-2 and Map VI-Mon-1 summarize the recommended expansion of the water quality monitoring network for the Root River watershed. They also identify potential locations for establishing the additional sampling stations along tributary streams. Several factors should be considered when siting these stations, including the suitability of the stream for the type of sampling contemplated at the potential stations, the availability of past monitoring data from the site of the potential station, accessibility of the site, and safety considerations. The final selection of sites for monitoring stations should include a field examination of the sites. The recommended expansion of water quality monitoring in the Root River watershed will provide several benefits related to the management of surface waters in the watershed. First, this expansion of monitoring activities to additional tributaries, lakes, and ponds will allow for the development of a more complete picture of the state of water quality conditions in the watershed. This more complete picture may be useful for determining the sources of local water quality problems. In addition, observed water quality data are essential to the calibration and validation of water quality models used to assess anticipated future water quality conditions. Expansion of the observed water quality database for the watershed would enable future refinement of the water quality models though additional calibrations. The addition of continuous monitoring stations, in particular, will yield a better picture of the dynamics of chloride concentrations within surface waters of the watershed. Second, expansion of monitoring activities to additional tributaries, lakes, and ponds will allow assessment of whether these waterbodies are meeting the water quality criteria that support their designated use objectives. This is particularly important given that the SEWRPC regional water quality management plan update for the greater Milwaukee watersheds recommends that the WDNR consider upgrading the water use objectives for Hoods Creek, Tess Corners Creek, and Whitnall Park Creek from limited forage fish to fish and aquatic life and Ives Grove Ditch from limited aquatic life to limited forage fish. Third, this expansion of monitoring activities to additional tributaries, lakes, and ponds will provide information needed for informing the management of these waterbodies. WATER QUALITY CONSTITUENTS TO BE MONITORED There are numerous indicators available for measuring and describing water quality including physical indicators such as water temperature, chemical indicators such as concentrations of dissolved substances, and biological indicators such as the abundance and taxonomic identities of the macroinvertebrates present. Historically, many different indicators have been used to assess the state of water quality in the Root River watershed.

14 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Table VI-Mon-2a lists those physical and chemical indicators that were routinely monitored in the Root River watershed by at least one monitoring program during the period 2010-2012. As previously described, several agencies and organizations are currently conducting monitoring activities in the Root River watershed. While there is overlap among these monitoring programs in which water quality constituents they sample and analyze, each program monitors a unique suite of indicators. There are several reasons for this. In part, this reflects the natures of the constituents. Some constituents, such as water temperature, pH, and water transparency, can be assessed relatively easily and inexpensively in the field. Others, such as total phosphorus and fecal indicator bacteria, require that water samples be transported to laboratory facilities for chemical or biological analysis. Sampling and analysis of some constituents, such as many metals and cyclic organic compounds may require the use of highly specialized sampling techniques and analytical equipment. The differences in the constituents monitored by the different programs also reflect differences in the capacities of these programs. Some of the programs have greater analytical capabilities and more resources than others. It should also be noted that the need to use highly specialized techniques and equipment for sampling and analyzing some constituents imposes differences upon monitoring programs in their abilities to monitor these constituents. For example, programs that rely upon volunteers to conduct sampling will be less suited to monitoring constituents that require highly specialized sampling techniques than those that rely upon highly-trained professional staff. Finally, it is important to recognize that each monitoring program has its own monitoring goals. These goals may differ from program to program and achieving different goals may require different monitoring strategies, including monitoring different constituents. In an ideal situation, there would be coordination among monitoring programs such that a consistent set of water quality constituents would be monitored throughout the watershed. Because of the considerations discussed in the previous three paragraphs, it seems unlikely that this ideal could be achieved in the Root River watershed in the foreseeable future. Despite this, it should be possible to achieve some additional convergence among the sets of constituents monitored by the various programs active within the watershed. It is recommended that each of the programs conducting water quality monitoring within the Root River watershed continue monitoring the constituents that they are currently monitoring. The list of physical and chemical indicators given in Table VI-Mon-2a is meant to provide guidance to monitoring programs in the Root River watershed when they consider adding constituents to the suites of constituents they currently monitor. The table lists these in five tiers that roughly correspond to the priority for adding them to the suite of constituents in an existing program, with Tier 1 representing constituents of the highest priority for addition and Tier 5 representing constituents of the lowest priority. The constituents listed in Tier 1 are either easy enough to sample or important enough to sample that it is desirable that they be sampled by all monitoring programs in the watershed. Several of the constituents listed in Tier 1 can be assessed in the field using hand-held meters or other field techniques. The main exceptions to this generalization are fecal indicator bacteria and total suspended solids which require that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis. It should be noted that turbidity and water transparency assess the same factor. While assessment of turbidity gives a more precise measure, it generally requires that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis. Water transparency can be measured in the field using a turbidity tube at stream and river sites or a Secchi disk at lake and pond sites. As part of Tier 1, one of these two constituents should be assessed. The constituents listed in Tier 2 represent the minimum set of additional water quality constituents that would be necessary to make assessments of those water quality that are most critical to the water quality focus area of this plan. Assessing these constituents requires that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis. As noted in

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 15

Chapter V of this report, the major approach that his plan takes to address the chronically low dissolved oxygen concentrations found in much of the Root River is to reduce phosphorus inputs into the surface water system. Monitoring of total phosphorus allows for a direct evaluation of the success of this approach. Monitoring five-day biochemical oxygen demand and chlorophyll-a provides a check on this because these constituents address other factors that can potentially impact dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface waters. Finally, monitoring chloride concentrations would both fill the data gap related to chloride concentrations in surface waters of the watershed and allow for the refinement of statistical models relating specific conductance to chloride. The constituents listed in Tier 3 comprise those constituents needed to give a complete picture of the status of major plant nutrients within the surface water system and several constituents whose chemistries affect the chemistry of other substances in water. Assessing these constituents requires that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis. There are three issues that should be noted about the nitrogen-related constituents in this tier. First, the toxicity of ammonia to fish and other aquatic organism depends upon ambient water temperature and pH, as well as the ambient concentration of ammonia. Whenever sampling is conducted for ammonia, sampling should also be conducted for water temperature and pH. Second, some laboratories analyze and report combined concentrations of nitrate and nitrite. In order to get a complete picture of nitrogen conditions, sampling should be conducted either for combined nitrate-plus-nitrite or for both nitrate and nitrite. Third, complete characterization of nitrogen conditions within surface waters requires that ammonia, Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate, and nitrite be sampled simultaneously. This allows for the calculation of organic nitrogen and total nitrogen. These four constituents should be sampled together. Tier 4 includes those constituents not included in higher priority tiers required to characterize conditions related to minor plant nutrients, solids, and several toxic metals in surface waters. Assessing these constituents requires that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis. Assessment of several of these constituents also requires the use of highly specialized techniques and equipment for conducting sampling and analysis. It should be noted that the toxicity of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc to fish and other aquatic organisms depends upon the pH of the water, as well as the concentration of the metal. Whenever sampling is conducted for these metals, sampling should also be conducted for pH. The constituents listed in Tier 5 consist of toxic cyclic organic compounds that are classified either as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), individual polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCB congeners), or commercial mixtures of PCB congeners. Assessing these constituents requires both that samples be transported to a laboratory for analysis and the use of highly specialized techniques and equipment for conducting sampling and analysis. While this watershed management plan envisions that monitoring programs will add constituents to the suites they sample on a tier-by-tier basis, it recognizes that particular management issues and the goals and objectives of individual monitoring programs may require that some constituents be added to sampling suites without regard to their locations in this tiered list. It is recommended that, in the absence of other such considerations, monitoring programs in the Root River watershed follow this tiered scheme when adding constituents to the suite of constituents that they sample and analyze. PERIODICALLY ANALYZE MONITORING DATA AND REPORT RESULTS Data analysis is an integral component of the water quality management process. For monitoring programs to be useful in guiding management decisions, generating good data is not enough. The data must be processed and presented in a manner that aids understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns in water quality. The data must be placed into a context that reveals the existing state of water quality conditions and any changes or trends occurring in those conditions. This should be a context that takes the natural processes and characteristics of the watershed into account, that allows the impact of human activities upon the watershed to be understood, and that enables the consequences of management action to be predicted. Establishing such a context requires that monitoring data be periodically analyzed, interpreted, and summarized. This should be done at a frequency that provides decision makers and managers with reasonably current information while recognizing the substantial effort that is required to analyze and interpret data from a watershed the size of the Root River watershed.

16 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Since 1964, nine studies, including this watershed restoration plan, have presented analyses, interpretations, and summaries of water quality conditions in the Root River watershed. These studies are listed in Table VI-Mon-3. Most of these studies were conducted either as part of, or in conjunction with, major planning efforts, including efforts that developed and updated the regional water quality management plan, that developed a comprehensive watershed plan, that developed and evaluated the results of a priority watershed nonpoint source pollution abatement plan, and that developed the State’s basin plan. The water quality analyses of two of these studies—the 1966 comprehensive plan for the watershed and the 1980 priority watershed plan—consisted largely of reiterations and extensions of the analyses in other studies. It should be noted that some of these studies examined subsets of the data that were available at the time of the study. Two sorts of data subsets have been examined. Some studies examined a subset of available water quality indicators. An example of this is the 1992 evaluation of the water quality effects of the priority watershed program which looked largely at macroinvertebrate and fisheries data. Other studies examined data from only a portion of the available record, generally incorporating data collected since about 1976. Despite the narrow focus of some of these studies, there has been a tendency over time for studies examining water quality in the Root River watershed to examine a larger set of water quality indicators and to incorporate data from a greater variety of sources. The intervals between the conduct and release of studies examining water quality in the Root River watershed have been irregular. The interval between the release of this watershed restoration plan and the last major examination of water quality in the Root River watershed is about seven years. This is the shortest interval between studies that included examination of water chemistry. By contrast, the interval between the release of SEWRPC TR No.17 and SEWRPC MR No. 93 (see Table VI-Mon-3) was about 17 years. Other such intervals were on the order of 11 to 12 years. It is recommended that monitoring data for the Root River watershed be collated, analyzed, and placed into context at an interval no greater than once every 10 years. This effort should include review and analysis of a wide variety of data and should include data from all publically available sources. While the full range of data to be incorporated into these studies will depend upon data availability, these studies should seek to include those data that have become available since the previous study, including such indicators as streamflow, water chemistry, fecal indicator bacteria, biological conditions, land use, stream channel conditions, habitat conditions, recreational use, and abundance and distribution of aquatic invasive species, as well as other indicators for which data that are deemed important or informative are available at the time the study is conducted. As part of the collation and analysis of these data, they should be compared to historical data. Such a comparison is necessary, both to assess trends in conditions within the watershed and to determine and document whether those conditions are improving or worsening. These analyses should include an assessment of the achievement of water use objectives through a comparison of the data to the applicable water quality criteria. These studies should assess the adequacy of the data and identify any gaps in the data. Finally, the analyses, results, and conclusions of these studies should be published and made available to the public and to the agencies and organizations involved in the management of the Root River watershed. Monitoring of Plan Implementation The ultimate test of whether watershed restoration activities are having a beneficial effect on water quality is the evidence of improvement in water quality conditions shown in instream and in-lake monitoring data. Unfortunately, while this is simple in concept, several factors make it difficult to detect the impacts of these activities upon water quality on a relatively short time scale. First, many water quality indicators show high variability. This variability can obscure changes and trends. As a result, long-term data sets comprised of large numbers of samples can be required to detect the changes in water quality conditions resulting from the implementation of watershed restoration activities. Second, there are likely to be reservoirs of pollutants stored within the watershed. Examples of these reservoirs include phosphorus contained in sediment deposits on streambeds and lake beds and chloride contained in groundwater. It can take time, sometimes years or decades, for these stored pollutants to pass through the system. Mobilization of pollutants from these reservoirs can cause reductions in water quality, even in the presence of

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 17

reduced loadings from point and nonpoint sources. As a result, the presence of these reservoirs can produce time lags between the implementation of a watershed restoration activity and the impact of the activity upon ambient conditions. Third, the pollutant load reductions produced by any single practice installed in the watershed are relatively small when compared to the pollutant load reductions needed to produce the level of water quality envisioned in the RWQMPU. For example, the results of the calibrated water quality model indicated that an annual reduction in the load of total suspended solids (TSS) of about 35 million pound would be necessary to produce the envisioned level of water quality in the Root River watershed. Preliminary studies of potential stormwater ponds for the Cities of Greenfield and Racine indicate that the range of reduction in TSS washed off the land surface each year achieved by these ponds could be expected to be between about 4,000 and 37,000 pounds TSS, depending upon factors such as pond size, location, tributary land use, and contributing area.18 On a watershed basis, these reductions each represent much less than 1 percent of the needed reductions. While these reductions may represent somewhat larger fractions of the required load reductions on a subwatershed basis, they are still small relative to the needed reductions. Fourth, it is important to recognize that water quality conditions at any site in a watershed reflect the cumulative effects of all the influences at the site and at all points in the watershed that are directly upstream of the site. Monitoring data will always reflect an integration of these influences. As a result, though a management practice may be functioning to greatly improve the future water quality of a waterbody, the visible effects of the practice, such as an increase in water clarity or a reduction in the concentrations of a nutrient, may not be immediately apparent and may only become apparent at some future time as part of the cumulative effects of many projects. Because of this, it will be useful to have a measure of progress in addition to the water quality monitoring data. To address this, it is recommended that monitoring be conducted to track the implementation of this watershed restoration plan. Tracking Mechanism Tracking implementation will require keeping track of all the projects that are undertaken in the Root River watershed that implement the recommendations of this plan. This could be best accomplished by having a reporting mechanism in which the organizations implementing recommendations of this plan report the initiation and completion of projects to some agency or agencies which would oversee the monitoring of implementation. The role of the overseeing agency or agencies would be to receive these reports, periodically compile this information, and evaluate the state of the implementation of the watershed restoration plan. It is recommended that the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (Sweet Water) act as the entity overseeing monitoring of plan implementation for those portions of the watershed that are located within the MMSD planning area, and it is recommended that the Root-Pike Watershed Initiative Network act as the entity overseeing monitoring of plan implementation for those portions of the watershed in Kenosha and Racine Counties outside of the MMSD planning area.

It is further recommended that all organizations acting to implement this plan report the initiation and completion of projects implementing plan recommendations to the entity overseeing monitoring for the portion of the watershed in which the project is conducted. Evaluating the State of Plan Implementation

_____________ 18AECOM, Storm Water Quality Management Analysis, Final Report to City of Greenfield, December 2008; AECOM, Storm Water Quality Management Plan Update/TMDL Preparedness Assessment, Final Report to City of Racine, December 2013.

18 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECREATIONAL USE AND ACCESS

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HABITAT

RACINE COUNTY FLOODING RECOMMENDATIONS

Approaches to addressing flooding problems in Racine County are set forth in Chapter V of this report. Those approaches were considered in developing the following recommendations to characterize and/or mitigate flooding and stormwater drainage problems in Racine County municipalities:19 Root River Mainstem in the City of Racine

The City should consider working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) under the FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (RiskMAP) program to conduct flood mitigation planning to develop alternatives that address the concentrated flood problem along the mainstem of the Root River.20

Flooding of Roadways in the County Either the 2012 FEMA flood insurance study for Racine County, or updated flood profile information

possibly developed in the future under the RiskMAP program, would provide information that can be used for municipalities to identify roadways that could overtop during floods. Municipalities should consider bridge or culvert modifications, and any necessary ancillary actions, to provide adequate hydraulic capacity to meet road overtopping standards as part of their capital improvements programs.

Scattered Buildings in the Floodplain Throughout the Watershed in Racine County In the case of widely-scattered floodprone buildings, the most feasible approach to providing flood

damage mitigation is generally to determine the most cost-effective combination of nonstructural approaches such as elevating potentially-flooded buildings, floodproofing buildings, or demolishing and removing buildings. It is recommended that:

o The County and affected municipalities request that nonstructural alternatives be given primary consideration under future FEMA RiskMAP activities.

o If the RiskMAP program does not proceed in the Root River watershed, or if the County and affected municipalities want to address certain scattered flooding problems prior to implementation of the RiskMAP process, it is recommended that they seek FEMA Hazard

_____________ 19As noted previously, MMSD has jurisdiction for developing and implementing flood mitigation plans along designated streams with the District. Necessary flood mitigation measures are identified through preparation by MMSD of watercourse system plans.

20A hydrologic model is being developed to compute flood flows throughout the Root River watershed, including the Racine County portion, as part of a study by SEWRPC to update floodplain delineations along the Root River mainstem and tributaries in Milwaukee County. Development of that model is underway, and the flood flows resulting from that process could be coupled with hydraulic models developed under the RiskMAP program, and applied to delineate revised floodplain boundaries and to analyze flood mitigation alternatives.

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 19

Mitigation Grant Program funds, or funds from other sources to evaluate nonstructural flood mitigation alternatives.

Stormwater Runoff Problems In locally-identified areas that experience stormwater flooding, as distinguished from flooding due to the overflow of streams and rivers, it is recommended that:

The affected municipalities, stormwater utility districts, and/or the Racine County Drainage Board prepare stormwater management plans designed to develop alternatives leading to a recommended plan to specifically address the problem areas by reducing the exposure of people to drainage-related inconvenience and to health and safety hazards and reduce the exposure of real and personal property to damage through inundation.

Stormwater management plans provide:

o A minor stormwater management system with adequate capacity to infiltrate, store, and/or convey the runoff from a 10-percent-annual-probability (10-year recurrence interval) storm while providing acceptable levels of access to property and traffic service,

o A major system to adequately infiltrate, store, and/or convey the runoff from the one-percent-probability storm without causing significant property damage and safety hazards, and

o An emergency overflow route to convey the peak rate of runoff to receiving streams during rain events with probabilities less than 1 percent.

HORLICK DAM

Due to the inadequate Horlick dam spillway capacity as discussed in the “Horlick Dam Alternatives” subsection in Chapter V, and regardless of the final hazard rating determination by WDNR, structural modifications to the dam would be necessary if the dam is to be maintained. Thus, a “no action” alternative is not a viable option for the Horlick dam. Following issuance of a WDNR order to the County, the WDNR staff has indicated that Racine County, the owner of the dam, will have 10 years to implement modifications to meet spillway capacity requirements, or to remove the dam. As set forth in detail in Chapter V of this report, the following five systems-level alternatives were developed to meet the regulatory requirements associated with the significant hazard rating assigned to Horlick dam by WDNR:

Alternative1—Full Notch of Current Dam Spillway for 0.2-percent-annual-probability (500-Year) Flood Capacity

Alternative 2—Lengthen Current Dam Spillway and Raise Abutments for 0.2-percent-annual-probability (500-Year) Flood Capacity

Alternative 3—Modify Current Fishway in Addition to Alternative 1 Changes

Alternative 4—Complete Notch of Current Dam Spillway

Alternative 5—Full Removal of Dam

Summary information related to the alternative plans is set forth in Tables V-C (fish passage and invasive species), V-D (costs), and V-E (major issues of concern) in Chapter V of this report. Drawings depicting each of the five alternatives considered are set forth in Figures V-B through V-F in Chapter V of this report.

20 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

The conceptual, systems-level alternatives analysis set forth in Chapter V was developed to assist the County in making a decision on what actions to take in response to a future order from WDNR calling for upgrades to the dam, if the dam is to remain. No recommendation is made to the County regarding which alternative it should select because the final decision would appropriately be made by the County giving consideration to its fiscal situation, County staff recommendations, the technical evaluation of alternatives set forth in this report, and input from other affected units of government and the public. CAPR-316 CH-6 (PARTIAL) DRAFT 02/12/14 MTG, REVISED 05/19/14 (00216231).DOC 300-1104 MGH/JEB/pk 05/19/14

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 21

SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 316

A WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED

Chapter VI

RECOMMENDED PLAN

TABLES

CAPR-316 CH-6 TABLES DRAFT 02/12/14 MTG, REVISED 05/19/14 (00216239).DOC 300-1104 MGH/JEB/pk 05/19/14

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

(This Page Left Blank Intentionally)

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 23

Table VI-WQM-1

WATER QUALITY INDICATORS USED TO COMPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Parameter Indicator

Fecal Coliform Bacteria over Entire Year Arithmetic mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria

Proportion of time fecal coliform bacteria concentration is equal to or below single sample standard

Geometric mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria

Days per year geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria is equal to or below geometric mean standard

Fecal Coliform Bacteria from May to Septembera Arithmetic mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria

Proportion of time fecal coliform bacteria concentration is equal to or below single sample standard

Geometric mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria

Days per year geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria is equal to or below geometric mean standard

Total Phosphorus Mean concentration of total phosphorus

Median concentration of total phosphorus

Proportion of time total phosphorus concentration is equal to or below the recommended planning standard

Total Suspended Solids Mean concentration of total suspended solids

Median concentration of total suspended solids aThis time period represents the body contact recreation season when bacteria concentrations are of the greatest interest. Source: SEWRPC.

24 PRELIMINARY DRAFT

Table VI-Mon-1

STREAM AND LAKE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATION NETWORK IN THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED: 2010-2012

Sampling Station River Milea

Water Chemistry

Stream Flow Bacteria Biological

Secchi Depth

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Root River at Cleveland Avenue ...................................... 41.5 Y N Y N - - Root River at W. National Avenue

and W. Oklahoma Avenue ............................................ 41.0 Y N Y N - - Root River at W. Coldspring Road ................................... 39.2 Y N Y N - - Root River at W. Grange Avenue ..................................... 36.7 Y N Y Yb - - Root River at W. Ryan Road ............................................ 28.0 Y N Y Yb - - Root River at County Line Road ....................................... 23.8 Y N Y N - -

U.S. Geological Survey Root River at S. Seymour Place (extended) ..................... 41.4 Y N N N - - Root River at W. Beloit Road ........................................... 39.8 Y N N N - - Root River at W. Layton Avenue ...................................... 38.6 Y N N N - - Root River at W. Grange Avenue ..................................... 36.7 N Y N Yb - - Root River at W. Ryan Road ............................................ 28.0 Y Y N Yb - - Root River below Horlick Dam ......................................... 5.9 N Y N N - - Root River Canal at 6 Mile Road ...................................... 3.7 N Y N N - -

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Root River at W. Beloit Road ........................................... 39.8 N N N Y - - Root River at W. Layton Avenue ...................................... 38.6 Y N N N - - Root River at W. Grange Avenue ..................................... 36.7 Y N N Y - - Root River at W. Rawson Avenue .................................... 32.4 N N N Y - - Root River at W. Puetz Road ........................................... 28.7 Y N N N - - Root River at W. Ryan Road ............................................ 28.0 Y N N Y - - Root River at W. Oakwood Road ..................................... 26.2 Y N N Y - - Root River at S. 60th Street ............................................. 25.5 Y N N Y - - Root River at CTH V ........................................................ 20.5 N N N Y - - Root River at STH 38 ....................................................... 18.6 N N N Y - - Root River at 6 Mile Road ................................................ 14.5 N N N Y - - Root River at 5 Mile Road ................................................ 13.6 Y N N Y - - Root River at 4 Mile Road ................................................ 12.4 N N N Y - - Root River at Johnson Park ............................................. 11.5 Y N N Y - - Root River at STH 31 ....................................................... 9.4 N N N Y - - Root River below Horlick Dam ......................................... 5.9 N N N Y - - Root River at Lincoln Park ............................................... 3.8 N N N Y - - Crayfish Creek at County Line Road ................................ 0.4 N N N Y - - Dale Creek at Southway .................................................. 0.5 N N N Y - - East Branch Root River near W. Claire Street .................. 0.5 N N N Y - - East Branch Root River Canal at STH 11......................... 8.1 N N N Y - - East Branch Root River Canal at CTH A .......................... 5.5 N N N Y - - East Branch Root River Canal at 2 Mile Road .................. 2.8 N N N Y - - East Branch Root River Canal at 4 Mile Road .................. 0.5 N N N Y - - Hoods Creek at STH 20 ................................................... 6.5 N N N Y - - Hoods Creek at CTH H .................................................... 4.7 N N N Y - - Hoods Creek at STH 38 ................................................... 1.7 N N N Y - - Hoods Creek at Brooks Road .......................................... 0.5 Y N N Y - - Husher Creek at 7 1/2 Mile Road ..................................... 0.3 N N N Y - - Husher Creek at 5 Mile Road ........................................... 1.0 Y N N Y - - Kilbournville Tributary at CTH G ....................................... 2.7 N N N Y - - Kilbournville Tributary at 7 Mile Road ............................... 0.9 N N N Y - - Legend Creek at S. 68th Street ........................................ 0.5 N N N Y - - Raymond Creek at 4 Mile Road ....................................... 0.8 N N N Y - - Root River Canal at 5 Mile Road ...................................... 4.8 N N N Y - - Root River Canal at 7 Mile Road ...................................... 2.6 N N N Y - - Root River Canal Upstream from

Confluence with Root River .......................................... 0.1 Y N N Y - -

Table VI-Mon-1 (continued)

PRELIMINARY DRAFT 25

Sampling Station River Milea

Water Chemistry

Stream Flow Bacteria Biological

Secchi Depth

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (continued) Ryan Creek at S. 92nd Street .......................................... 2.0 N N N Y - - Tess Corners Creek Upstream

from Whitnall Park Lagoon ............................................ 0.8 N N N Y - - Tess Corners Creek Upstream from

Confluence with Whitnall Park Creek ............................ 0.1 N N N Y - - West Branch Root River Canal at 67th Drive ................... 9.3 N N N Y - - West Branch Root River Canal at 2 Mile Road ................. 2.6 N N N Y - - West Branch Root River Canal at 4 Mile Road ................. 0.3 Y N N Y - - Whitnall Park Creek Downstream from

Confluence with Tess Corners Creek ............................ 0.4 N N N Y - - Wildcat Creek at STH 100................................................ 0.2 N N N Y - - Yorkville Creek at STH 20 ................................................ 0.4 N N N Y - -

City of Racine Health Department Root River at STH 38 (S. Howell Avenue) ........................ 18.6 Y N Y N - - Root River at 5 Mile Road ................................................ 13.6 Y N Y N - - Root River at Johnson Park ............................................. 11.5 Y N Y N - - Root River at STH 31 and 4 Mile Road ............................ 9.4 Y N Y N - - Root River below Horlick Dam ......................................... 5.9 Y N Y N - - Root River at WDNR Steelhead Facility ........................... 3.9 Y N Y N - - Root River at Island Park Bridge to Liberty Street ............ 3.1 Y N Y N - - Root River at REC Center ................................................ 1.6 Y N Y N - - Root River near Mouth ..................................................... 0.0 Y N Y N - - East Branch Root River Canal at STH 11......................... 8.1 Y N Y N - - East Branch Root River Canal at 4 Mile Road .................. 0.5 Y N Y N - - Hoods Creek at Brooks Road .......................................... 0.5 Y N Y N - - Husher Creek at 7 Mile Road ........................................... 1.0 Y N Y N - - Legend Creek at S. 68th Street ........................................ 0.5 Y N Y N - - Raymond Creek at 4 Mile Road ....................................... 0.8 Y N Y N - - Root River Canal at CTH G .............................................. 3.7 Y N Y N - - West Branch Root River Canal at 67th Road ................... 9.3 Y N Y N - - West Branch Root River Canal at 4 Mile Road ................. 0.5 Y N Y N - - Quarry Lake East Beach Site ........................................... - - N - - Y N N Quarry Lake West Beach Site .......................................... - - N - - Y N N

University of Wisconsin-Extension Water Action Volunteers Root River near 7 Mile Road and W. River Road ............. 15.7 Y N N Y - - Root River at 5 Mile Road ................................................ 13.6 Y N N Y - - Root River at STH 38 and 4 Mile Road ............................ 12.4 Y N N Y - - Root River above Horlick Dam ......................................... 6.0 Y N N Y - -

Kelly Lakes Association Upper Kelly Lake—Deep Hole ......................................... - - Y - - N N Y

aRiver mile is measured as the distance upstream from the confluence with the waterbody into which a stream flows. bBiological sampling was conducted at this station under a joint project between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Source: SEWRPC.

26 PRELIM

INARY D

RAFT

Table VI-Mon-2

STREAMS, LAKES, AND PONDS RECOMMENDED MONITORING IN THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED

Stations Monitored

2010-2012a Major Stations to be Retainedb

Waterbody Major Minor USGS WDNR MMSD RHD WAV or CLMN

Stations to be Added Potential Station Locationsc

Upper Root River-Headwaters Root River Mainstem ................................. 2 1 - - - - 2 - - - - 0

Hale Creek ................................................ 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 Root River Parkway or W. Cleveland Avenue

West Branch Root River ............................ 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 Historically monitored sites include at the Root River Parkway Road, S. 124th Street, and S. 132nd Street

Upper Root River Root River Mainstem ................................. 2 2 1 2 2 - - - - 0

Wildcat Creek ............................................ 0 0 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 Kulwicki Park or S. 108th Street

Whitnall Park Creek Brittany Lake ............................................. 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Lower Kelly Lake ....................................... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Monastery Lake ......................................... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Tess Corners Creek ................................... 2 0 - - 2 - - - - - - 2 Historically monitored immediately upstream from Whitnall Park Pond, other potential sites include crossings at S. Lovers Lane, W. Forest Home Avenue, S. North Cape Road, and W. St. Martins Road

Upper Kelly Lake ....................................... 1 0 - - - - - - - - 1 0

Whitnall Park Creek ................................... 1 0 - - 1 - - - - - - 2 Historically monitored at Root River Parkway, Whitnall Park, STH 100, STH 24, and S. Kurtz Road

Whitnall Park Pond .................................... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Middle Root River-Dale Creek Root River Mainstem ................................. 1 0 - - 1 - - - - - - 0

Dale Creek ................................................ 1 0 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 Southway or Clover Lane

Koepmier Lake .......................................... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Scout Lake ................................................ 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Scout Lake Tributary to Dale Creek ........... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 Historically monitored at Scout Lake Park, above and below Scout Lake

Table VI-Mon-2 (continued)

27 PRELIM

INARY D

RAFT

Stations Monitored

2010-2012a Major Stations to be Retainedb

Waterbody Major Minor USGS WDNR MMSD RHD WAV or CLMN

Stations to be Added Potential Station Locationsc

East Branch Root River East Branch Root River ............................. 1 0 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 S. 51st Street, W. Drexel Avenue,

W. Rawson Avenue

Mud Lake................................................... 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 At deepest point

Middle Root River-Legend Creek Root River Mainstem ................................. 2 0 1 1 1 - - - - 0

Legend Creek ............................................ 1 0 - - 1 - - 1 - - 0

Tuckaway Creek ........................................ 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 S. 68th Street

Upper West Branch Root River Canal West Branch Root River Canal .................. 2 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 Upstream of Union Grove WWTP

Lower West Branch Root River Canal 50th Road Tributary ................................... 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 50th Road or CTH U

Raymond Creek ......................................... 1 0 - - 1 - - 1 - - 0

Union Grove Tributary ............................... 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 61st Drive, 67th Drive, or 52nd Road

West Branch Root River Canal .................. 1 3 - - 2 - - 1 - - 1 Historically monitored at STH20, recent minor stations at 50th Road and 3 Mile Road

Yorkvi