Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

CHAPTER 7: IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ACTIONS

7.1 Identification of Priority Actions

The identification of priority actions builds upon the analyses of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Districts (MMSDs) 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP), both of which identified numerous management measures that would result in meeting watershed goals. The Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) Science committee determined three areas of highest concern, called focus areas. These include bacteria/public health, habitat, and nutrients/phosphorus (see Chapters 3 and 5). The technical team then identified a list of priority actions for each of the three focus areas, based on the high priority recommendations identified in the RWQMPU. Based on input from the Watershed Action Team, Policy Committee, and the Science Committee, the technical team compiled the list of actions into a priority actions matrix as a reference document. The matrix includes four tables: one for public health/bacteria (Table 7-1), two for habitat one for land-based measures (Table 7-2) and one for in-stream based measures (Table 7-3), and one for nutrients/phosphorus (Table 7-4). The tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five years to continue improving water quality and habitat in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and are meant to be used as a guide for future actions, by the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) and its committees; they are not meant to exclude any recommendations from the RWQMPU. Additional actions identified in the RWQMPU can be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) and in Chapter 10 of SEWRPCs RWQMPU Technical Report No. 50. The information in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 may change over time and as other projects are implemented. The information should be verified during the preparation of more detailed work plans as the next steps of implementation are completed. All of the recommendations in the RWQMPU contribute to improving water quality and habitat within the Kinnickinnic River watershed and achieving the overall goals of the RWQMPU. Although some recommendations are not included in the priority actions tables, this does not mean they should not be carried forward or implemented as opportunities arise. The high priority actions are merely identified to guide the implementation process based on the knowledge and data available as of November, 2009. Figure 7-1 summarizes the process to determine actions needed and briefly describes the components of the tables. The components of the tables are explained in more detail in the following text.

7-1

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

FIGURE 7-1: PRIORITY ACTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION

7-2

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan 1) Issues Problems in the watershed. The purpose of the WRP is to address water quality and habitat issues within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The three issues addressed by the Priority Actions are: a. Reduce the risk of getting sick if you swim in or otherwise contact the water (too many bacteria and pathogens in the water) b. Reduce the impact of development on habitat, including: i. Address human-induced runoff from the land surface to the stream system (reduced buffer widths; increased flashiness (rapid increase and decrease in flows); pollution; and increased erosion) ii. Address the human influences on instream fishery habitat and water quality (obstructions to fish and aquatic life passage, including concrete-lined channels and low-gradient dams; pollution; vegetation; and trash) c. Reduce the nutrient impacts on the watershed and discharge of nutrients from the watershed to Lake Michigan (excessive algae and cladophora growth) Issues can be linked to physical factors, chemical factors, or both. Often, there are multiple factors that contribute to an issue. Physical factors that contribute to issues include dams, flow velocity (the speed at which water flows in a stream), and concretelined channels. Chemical factors include high concentrations of bacteria that can indicate the presence of organisms that make people sick, or high concentrations of chlorides that are lethal to fish. 2) Goals A specific long-term result intended to be achieved that will help move towards improved regional water quality. Achieving goals will solve or work towards solving issues within the watershed. Goals can be quantitative or qualitative or both. Most quantitative goals also have a corresponding qualitative goal. An example of a quantitative goal is to reduce the total fecal coliform bacteria load to the Kinnickinnic River watershed by 52%. An example of a corresponding qualitative goal is to increase water-based recreational opportunities by reducing the risk of people getting sick when they recreate in the river. The baseline goals for this plan were defined in the RWQMPU and confirmed as the baseline goals for the WRPs by the SWWT Executive Steering Council. The baseline goals were based on regulatory standards or guidelines developed during the RWQMPU planning effort. The goals can be adapted and modified at any time by the SWWT. 3) Targets Short-term goals or steps required to reach the long-term goals. In order to breakdown the long-term goals into more manageable pieces, targets were established. Establishing targets helps determine the specific steps needed to achieve a goal and facilitates the development of measures to track progress. The targets were developed from the management measures selected from Chapter 6. An example of a target is to expand riparian buffer widths to a minimum of 75 feet. 4) Actions Activities or projects needed to achieve the targets and address, or start addressing, the issues. Actions can include data gathering, research, or actually removing a concrete-lined channel. The actions included in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 were 7-3

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan identified as actions that can make the most positive impact on habitat and water quality (focusing on fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus reduction) in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. They are not the only actions that can or should be taken. Implementing these actions should move water quality and habitat improvement towards meeting the targets and achieving the goals. An action, or a group of actions, was developed for each of the management measures that were selected to more clearly define activities needed to implement the management measures. 5) Measures A way to monitor progress of an action or set of actions towards achieving a specific target. Measures can be used to determine if the actions are being implemented and whether they are improving water quality or habitat or not. Examples of measures include: increased number of days that one can recreate in a stream, miles of buffers established, length of concrete channel removed, fish population diversity, and concentrations of pollutants. The progress for some actions can be determined as soon as they are implemented, like the length of concrete removed. However, it may take several years or even decades to be able to measure progress towards achieving certain water quality or habitat improvements. 6) Evaluate Results Determine what was accomplished by the actions, make adjustments, and continue process. An evaluation of the measures will show if the actions should be continued, used elsewhere, modified, or discontinued. 7) Primary Land Use the Action Addresses Appropriate area(s) where the actions would be applied. Some actions are land use-specific and are best suited to be applied to certain land uses, such as pet litter management in residential and parkland areas. This column provides guidance on where the actions would be most effective at improving water quality. A bullet in the column indicates the primary land use type(s) that the action addresses. Most of the actions that address habitat improvement can be applied regardless of the land use type. Therefore, this column was not included in Tables 7-2 and 7-3. 8) Responsible and/or Participating Organization Organization(s) that will lead the action and/or participate with the implementation of the activity. One organization will need to lead each activity to establish an ultimate decision maker and determine who will be accountable for implementing the action. When appropriate, other organizations can be identified as team members to help develop and implement the activity. The organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. The lead organization should be determined by a process established by the SWWT. 9) Relative Cost Approximation of an actions cost. The relative cost is provided to give the reader a sense of how expensive an action might be to implement throughout the watershed. There are many variables that impact the cost of an activity, including the level of implementation or the size of the project, whether land needs to be purchased, the location and condition of the land, and many other factors. Therefore, the information provided in the tables should be used as a guide only. For purposes of the tables, the categories are defined as a total watershed cost for the action:

7-4

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan Low = cost less than $500,000 Medium = more than $500,000 but less than $2,000,000 High = cost greater than $2,000,000

10) Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority Location and prioritization of where actions should be implemented. For each assessment point area, a priority for each action was assigned based on information available to the technical team and SEWRPC and engineering judgment. The information included model results, such as pollutant load per acre and percentage of unknown fecal bacteria attributed to the assessment point area; land use; whether there was an associated project underway; or where the action fit within the tiered approach developed by the habitat subcommittee that focuses on reconnecting waterways to Lake Michigan (described in Appendix 4A). The data used for the priority assignments are provided in the footnotes of the tables. These priorities are provided as a guide and can be modified by the Watershed Action Team (WAT) as the implementation process moves forward and as new information is gathered and analyzed. 11) Potential Contribution toward Achieving Watershed Target and Goal How much progress towards achieving the target or goal can be attributed to the action. Each action identified has the potential to contribute towards improved water quality and/or habitat in the watershed. Some actions have the potential to make a bigger impact than others. Some actions directly impact water quality, such as reducing bacteria sources. Others have an indirect impact, such as expanding a water quality monitoring program. During the development of the 2020 FP and the RWQMPU, some of the actions that directly impact water quality were assigned specific pollutant load reductions and some were not. There are several reasons why some actions were not assigned specific reductions. One reason is the impact from the action is highly variable depending on the site where it is applied. Another reason is the action relates to monitoring or data collection, which will be used to fill data gaps and assist with decision making, and indirectly impacts water quality or habitat improvement. This information is provided as a guide and can be modified by the WAT as the implementation process moves forward and as new information is gathered and analyzed. What will achieving the identified goals accomplish? Achieving the goals will significantly reduce the concentrations of pollutants in the streams and improve habitat in the watershed. However, all water quality standards as they exist in 2009 are not anticipated to be met under all circumstances even if all recommendations from RWQMPU are implemented and the goals are met. It is important to point out that the actions identified in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 are only a subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. . Information regarding anticipated water quality improvements based on full implementation of the RWQMPU is provided in Chapters 4 and 6 and discussed briefly below. Fecal Coliform Implementation of all actions identified in the RWQMPU recommended plan will result in significant improvement in fecal coliform concentrations, in general, even though 7-5

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan anticipated water quality conditions for most assessment point areas fall short of meeting water quality standards. However, this reduction and the focus on removing human sources of bacteria should reduce the risk of getting sick from contacting the water. For the Kinnickinnic River watershed, the overall load reduction anticipated is 52% or 2,600 trillion cells, per year. This will increase compliance with the geometric mean standard during the swimming season (May September) by 21 days in the lower reach of the mainstem. This reduction will allow progress towards any future bacteria standard that will use a different measure than fecal coliform bacteria. Habitat Achieving the habitat goals of meeting the fishable and swimmable standards would improve water quality and hydrology to the point where the watershed can sustain a natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses. Although progress can be made, the intense urbanization and relatively small size of the Kinnickinnic River watershed will make it extremely difficult to achieve the fishable swimmable goals in most areas of the watershed. However, there is hope for the area in the downstream portion of the watershed because of Lake Michigan. The types of fish and aquatic life that will be present will depend on many factors that will be influenced by the decisions made throughout the implementation of the WRP. The Kinnickinnic River watershed habitat-based assessment point areas are presented in Figure 7-2. Phosphorus Implementing the actions to address phosphorus will result in significant reduction in nutrient loading within the watershed. This would directly reduce algae and the loading of nutrients to the Milwaukee Estuary and Lake Michigan. The impending water quality standard scheduled to take effect in 2010 is anticipated to be met on a yearly average in about half of the assessment point areas following implementation of these activities. An additional action that should be researched and evaluated is finding an alternative to adding ortho-phosphates to drinking water. The actions noted are anticipated to bring most of the assessment point areas into compliance with the impending standard of 0.1 mg/L on a yearly average basis. 7.1.1 Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria (Table 7-1) The presence of fecal coliform bacteria is an indicator of potential pathogens that can make people sick. High levels of fecal coliforms (and the pathogens they may indicate) are a threat to the health of anyone who comes in contact with the water. The biggest risk to public health occurs when human fecal coliforms are present. Higher concentrations of fecal coliforms are normally found in streams during and after storms. Sources include the following: Unknown sanitary sewer cross-connections to storm sewers (unknown because the exact reasons are unknown for the wide spread bacteria found in storm sewers), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and failing septic systems Droppings from pets, seagull and geese Wildlife, livestock operations, and manure spreading on fields

7-6

FIGURE 7-2 HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan Table 7-1 presents the identified actions and associated information to address public health/bacteria. Implementing these actions will result in significant improvement in fecal coliform concentrations and will reduce the risk of getting sick when contacting the water during recreational activities. However, water quality standards as of 2009 are not anticipated to be met in most assessment point areas as a result of implementing of these activities even if all of the activities recommended in the RWQMPU were implemented and the RWQMPU goals were met. The actions identified in Table 7-1 are only a subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. Therefore, implementing only the actions in Table 7-1 will likely not reach the goals.

7-8

Table 7-1: Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria Kinnickinnic River Watershed
Focus Area: Public Health/Bacteria Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015 Issue: Risk of getting sick if you swim in or otherwise contact the water Goal: Greater water-based recreational opportunities SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Pollutant load reduction for fecal coliform bacteria for entire watershed by year 2020 = 52% or 2,600 trillion cells What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Significant reduction in total fecal coliform; reduced risk of getting sick; minimal improvement to meeting 2009 water quality standards
Primary Land Use the Action AddressesB Institutional & Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands, and Open Space Manufacturing & Industrial Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative PriorityE

Commercial

Agriculture

Kinnickinnic River Upper

Kinnickinnic River Middle

1a. Do dry weather surveys to identify outfalls that have dry weather flows 1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples) 1c. Determine ownership/owner of outfalls that have dry weather flows and/or human bacteria 1d. Initiate discussion w/ owner of outfall to begin determining corrective actions 1e. Implement projects to correct/remove/disconnect unknown sources of bacteria

1a. Number of stream miles surveyed

--

Municipalities and NGOs with assistance from UWM GLWI and MMSD

Low

BR

BR

BR

DR

ARU

BR

CR

BR

CR

1. Identify unknown sources of bacteria, and correct/remove/ disconnect unknown sources of bacteria (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

1b. % of outfalls sampled - -

Municipalities and NGOs with assistance from UWM GLWI and MMSD Municipalities and NGOs with assistance from UWM GLWI and MMSD Municipalities and NGOs with assistance from UWM GLWI and MMSD Municipalities and NGOs with assistance from UWM GLWI and MMSD

Medium

BR

BR

BR

DR

ARU

BR

CR

BR

CR

Kinnickinnic River Middle

Actions

MeasuresA

Transportation

Lyons Park Creek

Willa Mann Creek

Watershed Targets to be Accomplished by 2015

Holmes Avenue Creek

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationC

Cherokee Park Creek

South 43rd St. Ditch

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

Relative CostD (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Kinnickinnic River KK-11* Lower

High Density Residential

Low Density Residential

KK-10

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

KK-4

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-8

KK-9

Potential Contribution Toward Achieving Watershed Target & GoalF

BR

BR 8% reduction in total watershed loads by 2015; 16% reduction in total watershed loads by 2020

1c. % of owners identified - 1d. % of owners with whom discussions have been initiated 1e. % of sources corrected

Low

BR

BR

BR

DR

AR

BR

CR

BR

CR

BR

--

Low High

BR

BR

BR

DR

AR

BR

CR

BR

CR

BR

--

(Programs to detect and eliminate illicit connections $2000) Low

BR

BR

BR

DR

AR

BR

CR

BR

CR

BR

2a. Identify recreational and body contact areas 2. Increase recreational use of watershed (was not an action ranked in the SEWRPC Regional Plan) 2b. Identify other areas suitable for recreation or body contact 2c. Prioritize areas to restore for recreational use identified in Action 2b based on success of Action 1e. 3a. Identify where public ownership of land can serve as a starting point to increase riparian buffers 3b. Manage pet litter 3c. Implement programs to discourage unacceptably high numbers of waterfowl from congregating near water features - identify areas and take action to discourage waterfowl feeding

2a. Stream miles of watershed surveyed

--

SWWT

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained) Fill data gaps - use results to revise priorities on geographic concentration of Target 1 as data is developed

2b. Stream miles suitable for recreation/body -contact 2c. Stream miles restored for public access, -recreational use or body contact 3a. Number of stream miles with 75 feet-wide buffers or greater 3b. Number of municipalities with strengthened pet litter programs 3c. Number of areas documented, documented and successful implementation of programs to eliminate feeding or other food sources for waterfowl 3d. Required reports and estimates of TSS reductions that will have some benefit for bacteria 3e. Required reports and estimates of TSS reductions that will have some benefit for bacteria 3f. Number of documented, successful education programs implemented --

SWWT

Low

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

SWWT

Low Low (Riparian Buffer $940/acre (Cap.) $210/acre (O&M)) Low

TBD

Milwaukee County, Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

Site-specific

--

Milwaukee County, Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

2% reduction in total watershed loads

--

Milwaukee County, Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT

3. Reduce bacteria sources from land-based activities (actions were ranked medium to high in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

Low (Discourage Waterfowl $189/acre (O&M) Beach Grooming $6,200/acre (O&M)) High (Parking Lot Sweeping $3,400/acre (O&M) Street Sweeping $2,500/curb mile (Cap.) $60/curb mile (O&M)) High (Fertilizer Management $5000/acre (Cap.))

(priorities can be set after survey data is obtained)

Site-specific

3d. Implement projects to comply with MS4 permits

--

--

WDNR and Municipalities

B 13% reduction in total watershed loads by 2020

3e. Implement projects to comply with NR151 requirements 3f. Initiate municipal, county and SWWT education programs

--

--

WDNR and Municipalities

--

Milwaukee County, Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT

Low

Not measurable

Primary Land Use the Action AddressesB al Institutional & Governmental Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands, and Open Space Manufacturing & Industrial

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative PriorityE

Commercial

Agriculture

Kinnickinnic River Upper

Kinnickinnic River Middle

4a. Continue MMSD water quality monitoring program and expand it to include biotic sampling 4. Continue overall water quality monitoring to assess progress towards targets and goals (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan) 4b. Continue involvement of USGS in MMSD Corridor Study

4a. Continue existing level of water quality samples and parameters tested for if justified after annual review 4b. Maintain existing funding level for continued USGS involvement 4c. Overall data collection program is integrated through the USGS corridor study or other means. SWWT serves as a vehicle to coordinate and prioritize data ll ti d t collection efforts. ff t

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGOs

Low

USGS Not Applicable

Low

A Fill data gaps

4c. Coordinate WDNR sampling and monitoring programs with MMSD and USGS and integrate NGO sampling efforts (such as the efforts detailed in Target 1)

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGOs

Low

5. Achieve at least the 5 year LOP and strive for zero SSOs and continuous reduction of CSO (SSO was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan and CSO was medium priority) 6. Improved water quality in the Kinnickinnic River Estuary (was medium priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

5a. Adaptive implementation of overflow control program

5a. Annual volume and frequency of CSO and SSO

Kinnickinnic River Middle

Actions

Measures

Transportation

Lyons Park Creek

Willa Mann Creek

Watershed Targets to be Accomplished by 2015

Holmes Avenue Creek

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationC

Cherokee Park Creek

South 43rd St. Ditch

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

Relative CostD (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Kinnickinnic River KK-11* Lower BU

High Density Residential

Low Density Residential

KK-10

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

KK-4

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-8

KK-9

Potential Contribution Toward Achieving Watershed Target & GoalF

--

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

High

AR

18% reduction in total watershed loads by 2020C

6a. Renovate KK River Flushing Station

6a. Fecal coliform water quality data 6b. Progress toward achieving existing water quality standards 7a.Progress on the UWM GLI work on bacteriodes and other test parameters and development of human health water quality standards by WDNR and USEPA Not Applicable MMSD Medium Not Applicable

Reduces concentration only

7. Development of better health indicator for human pathogens (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

7a. Research development of better indicator test than fecal coliform to assess risks of disease and determination of human sources (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

Not Applicable

UWM GLWI, MMSD, Municipalities and NGOs

Medium

Fill data gaps

Footnotes: LEGEND A. The ultimate measure is whether bacteria loads to the streams are being reduced. A = Highest Priority B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of the WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39. B = Next Highest Priority C. C Organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate with the implementation of the action C = Moderate Priority D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance D = Lowest Priority E. Relative prioriity for Target 1 is based on the percentage of unknown sources estimated by the water quality model developed under the RWQMPU and verified with updated data for the WRP. R = Required by Law U = Underway F. Target 1: Approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source fecal coliform loads from the subwatersheds were determined to be from unknown sources. Considering the potential challenges associated with this work, the Regional Plan recommended 33% of these unknown sources be eliminated by 2020. Reducing 33% of these sources would reduce the total fecal coliform Foundation Action load by 16%. If half of this load is reduced by 2015, approximately 8% of the load would be reduced.Target 5: Goal from MMSD's 2020 Facilities Plan is 5-year LOP for SSO's This list is not an inclusive list of actions for meeting the water quality and habitat goals established by the RWQMPU or the WRP. The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

7.1.2

Priority Actions to Address Land-based Habitat (Table 7-2)

During the development of the WRP, the Science Committee formed a Habitat Subcommittee to address habitat issues. The Habitat Subcommittee developed Table 7-2, which identifies priority actions to address land-based habitat issues resulting from human influences on runoff from the land surface. The targets identified to address the issues are related to riparian corridors, hydrology, water quality and quantity, and improved monitoring within the 10 assessment point areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. 1 See Appendix 4A for additional information.

SEWRPC Staff Memorandum - Data Analysis And Recommendations Related To The Menomonee River And Kinnickinnic River Watersheds For Purposes To Assist The Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust (SWWT) Science Committee In Development Of Watershed Restoration Plans, November 25, 2009

7-10

Table 7-2: Priority Actions to Address Land-based Measures

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Focus Area: Habitat- Land Based Measures Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015 Issue: Mitigating the human influences on runoff from the land surface to the stream system. Goal: Habitat improvement through reduction of land based detrimental influences on the watershed. SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Achievement of the fishable and swimmable standards. What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Improvement of water quality and hydrology to sustain a natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses.

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches & Subwatersheds KK-10 (includes KK9) Kinnickinnic River-Middle AR A AR A A A A A

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

MeasuresA

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationB

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

1a. Implement stormwater management practices at the subwatershed level

Hydrology
1. Moderate flow regimes to decrease flashiness 1b. Implement stormwater management practices at the neighborhood level

1a. Numbers of detention and infiltration basins installed, drainage area controlled by regenerative stormwater practices that achieve quality and quantity control, area of permeable paving materials installed, acres of wetland and upland restored, area of low-impact development

High (Wet Detention $0.37/cu ft (Cap.) $0.02/cu ft (O&M) Stormwater Treatment $32,500/acre (Cap.) $3,200/acre (O&M)) Medium Rain Garden $1000 (Cap.) / $50 (O&M) Rain Barrel $50 (Cap.) / $3 (O&M) Downspout Disconnect $50 (Cap.)

MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities, Counties

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

1b. Number of rain gardens or rain barrels installed and downspouts disconnected, green roofs installed

MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities, Counties

1c. Maintain stormwater management practices at all levels 1d. Restore floodplain connectivity with the stream system

1c. Drainage area controlled by regenerative stormwater practices that achieve quality and quantity control and numbers of basins inspected and maintained 1d. Miles of stream connected with the floodplain.

MMSD, WDNR, Municipalities, Counties MMSD, WDNR, NGOs, Municipalities, Counties

Low

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

AR

Medium-High High (Infiltration (Residential) $22,000/acre (Cap.) $1,100/acre (O&M) Infiltration (Industrial) $110,000/acre (Cap.) $5,300/acre (O&M)) Medium High (Road Salt Reduction $35/lane mile (Cap.) $105/lane mile (O&M))

--

Water Quality and Quantity

2. Reduce water quality and quantity impacts using green infrastructure

2a. Implement green infrastructure to reduce runoff

2a. Improvement of flashiness index, improvement of water quality all year long

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

3a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs

3a. Obtain water quality and biological data on stream reaches that have had the benefit of reduced salt usage 3b. Locate stream reaches that have high salt concentrations and target them for pilot programs 3c. Educate commercial owners, contractors, operators, municipalities and the public on use of salt on driveways and other areas

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities including Counties WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities including Counties WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities including Counties

3. Reduce water quality impacts from nonpoint runoff (focus on chlorides)

3b. Implement new pilot road salt reduction programs

3c. Implement road salt reduction program education

Low

Kinnickinnic River-Lower A A A A A A

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

Kinnickinnic River-Upper

Holmes Avenue Creek

Cherokee Park Creek

Lyons Park Creek

Relative CostC (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Villa Mann Creek

South 43st Ditch

KK-11

KK-4

KK-8

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches & Subwatersheds KK-10 (includes KK9) Kinnickinnic River-Middle A A A A A A A B A A B

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

MeasuresA

Responsible and/or B Participating Organization

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

Water Quality and Quantity

4. Reduce water quality and quantity impacts from CSOs, SSOs and stormwater outfalls

4a. Provide adequate conveyance and storage volume through traditional (detention and infiltration basins) and innovative techniques (bio-infiltration, green infrastructure, etc.) 4b. Implement road salt reduction programs 5a. Implement measures to reduce localized erosion and physically modify the most-active outfalls (i.e. those with the greatest effect on instream physical conditions) 6a. Purchase lands identified on Map __ through donation, grants, fee simple purchase, or acquisition of conservation easement. 6b. Implement management activities to promote restoration.

4a. Annual volume and frequency of CSO, SSO, and stormwater discharges, improvement of water quality during wet weather events

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

High

4b. Reduced concentration of chlorides in streams 5a. Number of flow deflectors installed, pipes cut back from stream bank, linear feet of riprap installed, or amount of land purchased to provide bio-infiltration

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

High (Chloride Reduction $35/lane mile (Cap.) $105/lane mile (O&M))

5. Reduce localized erosion at CSO, SSO, stormwater outfall pipes

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

Medium

Riparian Corridors
6. Expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet

6a. Stream miles of buffer width 75 feet or greater

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs WDNR, and MMSD

Low (Riparian Corridors $944/acre (Cap.) $210/acre (O&M))

--

6b. Tons of historic fill and/or trash removed and number of native species restored 6c. Area of exotic invasive species removed 6d. Area of native wetland or upland reconstructed

6c. Conduct additional surveys to determine riparian buffer widths not yet inventoried. 7a. Purchase lands identified on Map __ through donation, grants, fee simple purchase, or acquisition of conservation easement. 7. Expand riparian buffer continuity 7b. Implement management activities to promote restoration.

6e. stream miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs Universities, WDNR, and MMSD Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs Universities, WDNR, and MMSD Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs Universities, WDNR, and MMSD Municipalities, SWWT, SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs Universities, and MMSD

Medium

--

Low Low- Medium ($4000/acre (Cap.) $773/acre (O&M)) Low Low (Riparian Corridors $944/acre (Cap.) $210/acre (O&M))

--

--

--

7a. Stream miles of continuous buffer Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs widths of 77 feet or greater WDNR, and MMSD 7b. Number of stream channel Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs crossings and/or impediments to flow Universities, WDNR, and removed and/or retrofitted to restore MMSD continuity of riparian buffers 7c. Miles of recreational trails created for public access, recreational use or body contact Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs Universities, WDNR, and MMSD

--

Medium

--

7c. Implement management activities to promote recreation.

Medium

--

Kinnickinnic River-Lower A A A A A A A B A A B

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

Kinnickinnic River-Upper

Holmes Avenue Creek

Cherokee Park Creek

Lyons Park Creek

Relative CostC (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Villa Mann Creek

South 43st Ditch

KK-11

KK-4

KK-8

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches & Subwatersheds KK-10 (includes KK9) Kinnickinnic River-Middle B A A A

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

MeasuresA

Responsible and/or B Participating Organization

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

8. Protection of high quality areas or environmentally sensitive lands

8a. Conduct additional surveys to determine riparian buffer widths not yet inventoried. 8b. Purchase of lands to expand buffers within the SEWRPCdelineated Primary and Secondary Environmental Corridors, especially along the mainstem and tributary stream courses 8c. Discourage any additional development within the floodplain. 9a. Continue maintenance of existing physical, chemical, and biological monitoring stations and develop new monitoring sites (including wildlife monitoring) in cooperation with citizen and other monitoring programs and share the knowledge with stakeholders

8a. Stream miles inventoried and area of potential buffer identified

Municipalities, SWWT, SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs Universities, and MMSD

Low

--

8b. Stream miles or area of land protected

Municipalities, SWWT, NGOs WDNR, and MMSD

High

--

8c. Continued enforcement of local zoning ordinances and, where applicable, ordinance revisions to require mitigative compensation for filling in the floodplain

Municipalities, County

Low

Monitoring and Information

9. Continue and expand monitoring and informational programming

9a. Number of stations established and numbers of informational programs delivered

Universities, MMSD, WDNR, USGS, Municipalities and NGOs

Low-Medium

LEGEND Footnotes: A = Highest Priority A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving. B = Next Highest Priority B. Organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. The lead organization and participants for each action should be determined by the SWWT. R = Required by Law C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance Foundation Action This list is not an inclusive list of actions for meeting the water quality and habitat goals established by the RWQMPU or the WRP. The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards impr

Kinnickinnic River-Lower B A A A

Kinnickinnic River-Upper

Holmes Avenue Creek

Cherokee Park Creek

Lyons Park Creek

Relative CostC (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Villa Mann Creek

South 43st Ditch

KK-11

KK-4

KK-8

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

7.1.3

Priority Actions to Address Instream-based Habitat (Table 7-3)

The Habitat Subcommittee also developed Table 7-3, which identifies priority actions to address instream-based habitat issues resulting from human influences on instream fishery habitat and water quality. The targets identified to address the issues are related to aquatic organism passage, aquatic habitat, aquatic organisms and improved monitoring, recreation and aesthetics. 2 See Appendix 4A for additional information.

Ibid.

7-13

Table 7-3: Priority Actions to Address Instream-based Measures

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Focus Area: Habitat- Instream Based Measures Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015 Issue: Mitigating the human influences on instream fishery habitat and water quality. Goal: Habitat improvement through reduction of instream based detrimental influences throughout the stream system. SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Achievement of the fishable and swimmable standards. What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Improvement of water quality and habitat to sustain a natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses.

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches & Subwatersheds KK-10 (includes KK9) Kinnickinnic River-Middle A A A A A A A

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

MeasuresA

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationB

Wilson Park Creek-Lower

Aquatic Organism Passage

1. Restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e. Follow 3-Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Appendix 4A)

1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the mainstem

1a. Stream miles of concrete removed, number of native species present (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

High ($2,000 - $4,200/linear foot (Cap.))

--

1b. Restore connectivity with floodplain and recreate a more natural meandering stream (to be undertaken simultaneously with 1a) to restore stream hydrology dynamics

1b. Stream miles of channel restored, number of native species present (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators) 1c. Stream miles of concrete removed, number of drop structures eliminated, miles of enclosed channel daylighted or retrofitted, number of bridge crossings retrofitted, and channel restored, number of Tributary miles connected to mainstem, number of native species present (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators) g ) 2a. Stream miles of habitat protected 2b. Stream miles of habitat created, number of native species present (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Medium-High

--

1c. Expand passage restoration efforts beyond the mainstem to the tributaries

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Medium-High (Dam Abandonment and Restoration Plan $25,000/dam (Cap.) for drop structure removal)

--

Aquatic Habitat

2. Restore fish and aquatic organism habitat from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e. Follow 3-Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Appendix 4A)

2a. Protect and expand existing highest quality remaining fishery and aquatic habitat (see Appendix 4A) 2b. Provide instream habitat treatments including pool and riffle structure, substrates, and vegetation 2c. Restore connectivity with floodplain and recreate a more natural meandering stream (to be undertaken simultaneously with 2a) to provide for the life history of fish and aquatic organisms (rearing, feeding, breeding, and refuge areas) 2d. Maintain water quality conditions conducive to a successful and sustainable fishery

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Low

--

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Medium

--

2c. Number of miles connected and functional as fish and aquatic organism habitat, number of native species present (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

High

--

2d. Thermal regime, oxygen concentrations, turbidity, etc.

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Medium

--

Kinnickinnic River-Lower A A A A A A A

Wilson Park Creek-Upper

Kinnickinnic River-Upper

Holmes Avenue Creek

Relative CostC (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Cherokee Park Creek

Lyons Park Creek

Villa Mann Creek

South 43st Ditch

KK-11

KK-4

KK-8

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

Tributary Reaches & Subwatersheds

Mainstem Reaches & Subwatersheds KK-10 (includes KK9) Kinnickinnic River-Midd dle A A A A A A A A A

Habitat Dimension

Watershed Targets

Actions

MeasuresA

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationB

Wilson Park Creek-Lowe er

Wilson Park Creek-Uppe er

3. Restore a sustainable fishery

3a. Protect and expand remaining or existing highest quality aquatic communities (fisheries, macroinvertebrates, mussels) (see Appendix 4A)

3a. Number, type, and life stages of native species observed (see Appendix 4A for biological indicators)

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Low

--

Aquatic Organisms

3b. Reintroduction of native species 3c control and removal of nonnative species 4a. Continue and expand monitoring efforts and inventory maintenance for fish passage, habitat, aquatic organisms, and water quality 4b. Develop new monitoring sites in cooperation with citizen and other monitoring programs and share the knowledge with stakeholders 5a. Maintain existing recreational opportunities

3b. Number, type, and life stages of SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and native species observed (see MMSD Appendix 4A for biological indicators) 3c. 3c Area cleared or tons removed of Municipalities SWWT NGOs SWWT, non-native species with WDNR and MMSD 4a. Number of stations established and conditions documented and shared with stakeholders Municipalities SWWT, NGOs Universities, USGS, SEWRPC, WDNR and MMSD

Low

--

Low-Medium

--

Monitoring and Information

Low-Medium

--

4. Monitoring and Informational programming

4b. Number of stations established and numbers of informational programs delivered

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs Universities, USGS, SEWRPC, WDNR and MMSD Counties, NGOs, municipalities, WDNR, local stakeholders

Low

--

Recreation

5a. Number of facilities maintained, public access sites 5b. numbers of signs installed to identify unsafe navigational hazards, number of navigational hazards removed or retrofitted, number of new public access sites or facilities created, number of informational signs installed 5c. Number of safe recreation days, number of areas identified as safe for recreation, number of safe exits constructed in confined channels 6a. Tons of debris identified, collected, and disposed of

Low

--

5. Improve recreational opportunities

5b. Develop new and safe recreation opportunities such as linking water and land-based trail systems

Counties, NGOs, municipalities, WDNR, local stakeholders

Low

--

5c. Maintain appropriate water quality conditions and create safe flow conditions conducive to full contact recreation 6a. Continue and expand trash and debris collection and disposal

MMSD, WDNR, NGOs, municipalities, local stakeholders

Medium

--

Aesthetics

6. Removal of trash

Municipalities SWWT, NGOs with WDNR and MMSD

Low-Medium (Skimmer Boat $1,000,000 for new boat $150,000 (O&M))

--

Footnotes: it is important to note that these instream actions and measures will require permits from the WDNR, municipalities, and/or Counties.

A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving. B. Organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. The lead organization and participants for each action should be determined by the SWWT. C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance, cost for concrete removal is based on average of recent MMSD project costs. D. Relative prioriity based on 3-tiered approach, described in Appendix 4A, which emphasizes the mainstem, then tributaries, then high quality areas. This list is not an inclusive list of actions for meeting the water quality and habitat goals established by the RWQMPU or the WRP. The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved wate

LEGEND A = Highest Priority B = Next Highest Priority R = Required by Law Foundation Action

Kinnickinnic River-Lowe er A A A A A A A A A

er Kinnickinnic River-Uppe

Holmes Avenue Creek k

Relative CostC (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

Cherokee Park Creek

Lyons Park Creek

Villa Mann Creek

South 43st Ditch

KK-11

KK-4

KK-8

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

7.1.4

Priority Actions to Address Nutrients/Phosphorus (Table 7-4)

Excess phosphorus can lead to an increase in weed growth, which results in aesthetic impacts and can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations at night, which is harmful to fish. When the weeds die, they can stink and also reduce the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water. Sources of phosphorus include the following: Non-contact cooling water and any other discharge of treated drinking water (orthophosphates) Fertilizers Sanitary sewer overflows Eroding soil (phosphorus is naturally occurring nutrient that clings to soil particles) Table 7-4 presents the identified actions and associated information to address nutrients/phosphorus. As noted above in Section 7.1, implementing these actions will result in significant reduction in nutrient pollution of the watershed and may bring most assessment point areas in line with the impending water quality standard.

7-15

Table 7-4: Priority Actions to Address Nutrients/Phosphorus

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Focus Area: Nutrients - Phosphorus Implementation Period: 2010 to 2015 Issue: Nutrient impacts on the watershed and discharge of nutrients from the watershed to Lake Michigan Goal: Reduction of nutrient loads and impacts on water quality such as algae and cladophora SEWRPC Regional Plan Goal: Pollutant load reduction for phosphorus for entire watershed by year 2020 = 20% or 2,600 pounds per year reduction What Will Meeting this Goal Accomplish?: Significant reduction in nutrient pollution of the watershed including algae reduction and reduction of nutrient discharges to the Milwaukee Estuary and Lake Michigan

Primary Land Use the Action AddressesB Institutional & Governmental

Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative PriorityE

Outdoor Recreation, Wetlands, Woodlands, and Open Space

Manufacturing & Industrial

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

KK-4

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-8

Commercial

Agriculture

Wilson Park CreekUpper

Wilson Park CreekLower

Kinnickinnic RiverUpper

1a. Adaptive implementation of overflow control program

1a. Annual volume and frequency of CSO and SSO 1b. Required reports and estimates of phosphorus reductions associated with TSS reduction 1c. Required reports and estimates of phosphorus reductions associated with TSS reduction 1d. Required reports and estimates of phosphorus reductions

--

--

WDNR, MMSD, and Municipalities

Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle

Watershed Targets

Actions

Measures

Transportation

Lyons Park Creek

Willa Mann Creek

Responsible and/or Participating OrganizationC

Holmes Avenue Creek

Cherokee Park Creek

South 43rd St. Ditch

Relative Cost (for implementation of the action in the entire watershed; unit costs shown if available)

KK-9

Kinnickinnic RiverKK-11* Lower --------

Kinnickinnic RiverKK-10 Middle

High Density Residential

Low Density Residential

Potential Contribution Toward Achieving Watershed Target & Goal

High Medium-High (Parking Lot Sweeping $3,400/acre (O&M) Street Sweeping $2,500/curb mile (Cap.) $60/curb mile (O&M)) High (Stormwater Treatment $32,500/acre (Cap.) $3,200/acre (O&M))

AR

6% reduction in total watershed loads

1. Reduce phosphorus loads from regulated discharges (actions were ranked low to high in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

1b. Implement projects to comply with MS4 permits

--

--

WDNR and Municipalities

RD

RB

RD

RD

RA

RB

RD

RC

RD

RC

11% reduction in total watershed loads by 2020 RD RB RD RD RA RB RD RC RD RC

1c. Implement projects to comply with NR151 requirements 1d. Reduction of phosphorus oads loads due to t e State ba o the ban of phosphorus in commercial fertilizers

--

--

WDNR and Municipalities

--

--

WDNR and Municipalities

Low

Estimated 8% reduction in total watershed loads based on literature

2. Reduce phosphorus sources from land-based activities by some % or number (buffers not recommended in KK watershed in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

2a. Identify where public ownership of land can serve as a starting point to increase riparian buffers

2a. Number of stream miles with 75 feet-wide buffers or greater where public ownership exists

Not Applicable

Milwaukee County, Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT

Low (Riparian Corridors $944/acre (Cap.) $210/acre (O&M))

8% reduction in total watershed loads by 2020

3a. Continue MMSD water quality monitoring program and expand it to include biotic sampling 3. Continue overall water quality monitoring to assess progress towards targets and goals (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

3a. Continue existing level of water quality samples and parameters tested for if justified after annual review 3b. Maintain existing funding level for continued USGS involvement 3c. Overall data collection program is integrated through the USGS corridor study or other means. SWWT serves as a vehicle to coordinate and prioritize data collection efforts. 4a. phosphorus water quality data

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGOs Not Applicable

Low

3b. Continue involvement of USGS in MMSD Corridor Study

USGS

Low

Fill data gaps

3c. Coordinate WDNR sampling and monitoring programs with MMSD and USGS and integrate NGO sampling efforts (such as the efforts detailed in Target 1)

Not Applicable

MMSD, WDNR, USGS, NGOs

Low

--

4. Improved water quality in the Kinnickinnic River Estuary (was medium priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

4a. Renovate KK River Flushing Station

4b. Progress toward achieving existing phosphorus water quality standards 5a. Progress on public and private research in the Milwaukee area on development of better technology

Not Applicable

MMSD

Medium

Not Applicable

BU

Reduces concentration only

5. Reduce use of phosphoric acid for control of lead and copper in drinking water systems

5a. Research development of alternatives to Phosphoric acid use by public and private researchers in area universities and industries

Not Applicable

UWM WQI, MMSD, Municipalities, Industries, Milwaukee 7, and NGOs

Medium

11% reduction in total watershed loads (if phosphorus from all industrial point sources eliminated) Alternative to Phosphoric acid would have regional, national and global impacts

LEGEND A = Highest Priority Footnotes: B = Next Highest Priority A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving. C = Moderate Priority B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of the WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39. D = Lowest Priority R = Required by Law C. Organizations listed are proposed to lead or participate with the implementation of the action D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance U = Underway E. Relative prioriity for Actions 1b and 1c are based on the total nonpoint load per acre Foundation Action This list is not an inclusive list of actions for meeting the water quality and habitat goals established by the RWQMPU or the WRP. The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

7.1.5

Foundation Actions (Table 7-5)

Even after distilling the RWQMPU recommendations into the Priority Action tables, the overall consensus among the SWWT committees was that there were still too many actions. Therefore, to provide further guidance on the next projects that should be implemented, the technical team developed a Foundation Actions table (Table 7-5). The actions chosen for the Foundation Actions table are considered to be the predecessor actions for all other recommended actions. The idea is that these actions must be completed before the full benefits of other actions can be realized and would be completed no matter what the final goals were for the watershed. For example, the full benefits of instream habitat improvements in the upstream reaches of the Kinnickinnic River watershed can never be fully realized until a better connection with Lake Michigan is created by removing the concrete-lined channel in the lower reaches of the Kinnickinnic River. As with the Priority Action tables, the Foundation Action table is meant to be used as a guide for future actions and can be modified as new information is obtained and as projects are implemented. Also, the table is not meant to exclude any recommendations from the RWQMPU.

7-17

Table 7.5: Foundation Actions

Kinnickinnic River Watershed

Watershed Targets to be Accomplished by 2015

Actions

PUBLIC HEALTH/BACTERIA 1a. Do dry weather surveys to identify outfalls that have dry weather flows 1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples) 1c. Determine ownership/owner of outfalls that have dry weather flows and/or human bacteria 1d. Initiate discussion w/ owner of outfall to begin determining corrective actions 1e. Implement projects to correct/remove/disconnect unknown sources of bacteria 2a. Identify recreational and body contact areas 2. Increase recreational use of watershed (was not an action ranked in the SEWRPC Regional Plan) 2b. Identify other areas suitable for recreation or body contact 2c. Prioritize areas to restore for recreational use identified in Action 2b based on success of Action 1e. 3a. Identify where public ownership of land can serve as a starting point to increase riparian buffers 3b. Manage pet litter 3c. Implement programs to discourage unacceptably high numbers of waterfowl from congregating near water features - identify areas and take action to discourage waterfowl feeding 3d. Implement projects to comply with MS4 permits 3e. Implement projects to comply with NR151 requirements 3f. Initiate municipal, county and SWWT education programs 1a. Implement stormwater management practices at the subwatershed level 1b. Implement stormwater management practices at the neighborhood level 1c. Maintain stormwater management practices at all levels 1d. Restore floodplain connectivity with the stream system 2a. Implement green infrastructure to reduce runoff 3a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs 3b. Implement new pilot road salt reduction programs 3c. Implement road salt reduction program education

1. Identify unknown sources of bacteria, and correct/remove/ disconnect them (was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

3. Reduce bacteria sources from land-based activities (actions were ranked medium to high in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)

HABITAT - LAND-BASED

1. Moderate flow regimes to decrease flashiness

2. Reduce water quality and quantity impacts using 3. Reduce water quality impacts from nonpoint runoff (focus on chlorides)

HABITAT - INSTREAM-BASED 1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the mainstem 1. Restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e. Follow 3-Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Appendix 4A) 1b. Restore connectivity with floodplain and recreate a more natural meandering stream (to be undertaken simultaneously with 1a) to restore stream hydrology dynamics 1c. Expand passage restoration efforts beyond the mainstem to the tributaries

PHOSPHORUS 1a. Adaptive implementation of overflow control program 1b. Implement projects to 1. Reduce phosphorus comply with MS4 permits loads from regulated 1c. Implement projects to discharges (actions were comply with NR151 ranked low to high in the requirements SEWRPC Regional Plan) 1d. Reduction of phosphorus loads due to the State ban of phosphorus in commercial fertilizers This list is not an inclusive list of actions for meeting the water quality and habitat goals established by the RWQMPU or the WRP. The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

7.2

Comments Received on Priority Actions Tables

Watershed Action Team meetings and Science Committee meetings were held in Fall 2009 to discuss ongoing development of the Watershed Restoration Plan for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Comments were solicited from participants at the meeting and through the postal service, e-mail, or e-forum in regards to the Draft Priority Action tables, which were called the Draft Summary Matrix at the time. The following sections are intended to outline the comments that were submitted during the development of the Priority Action tables (indicated in italics) and discuss how the comments were addressed or why they were not addressed in the tables. 1. Metals and PAHs Metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are not specifically addressed in the plans and these two parameters are important impairments for fish and wildlife. While metals and PAHs are not identified for special attention in the WRPs, they are expected to be reduced through implementation of the NR 151 requirements. In addition, it is expected that metals and PAHs will be reduced as a result of other actions identified in the priority action tables that reduce stormwater runoff. Because metals and PAHs have not been a specific focus area, nor on the parameter list based on the Science, Policy and Executive committee discussions, they have not been modeled during this study. Some modeled parameters can be an indicator (such as turbidity) or surrogate (such as total suspended solids (TSS)) of these pollutants, but additional data on these pollutants have not been collected as part of this study. Specific reductions of these pollutants can be measured and investigated in future studies. It was suggested that the matrix include a monitoring recommendation to specifically address TSS or PAHs/heavy metals. By collecting the relevant data, future plans will have the data needed to address these important pollutants as well. This will facilitate future iterations of the plan to address this better data. Another commenter asked whether polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) should also be considered and whether additional monitoring should be added to the recommendations. Awareness and education efforts related to automobile practices and use of transportationrelated chemicals such as antifreeze, motor oil, and fuel could be included and would also benefit from future monitoring data. These comments were addressed by adding metals and PAHs specifically in the monitoring and information section of Table 7-3. There are also recommendations in the RWQMPU to maintain and expand monitoring programs. As the implementation process moves forward, additional data gaps will be identified and specific monitoring projects can be conducted to gather the appropriate data. 2. Buffers There are multiple benefits of buffers and other actions/facilities. Perhaps these are actions that should be focused on first. These projects may be the most likely projects to receive funding. The use of buffers is recommended in many of the recommended actions. The inclusion of habitat improvements related to land based activities is included in the Foundation Action table (Table 7-5) and buffers are an element of this action. 7-19

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

3. Activity Champions The SWWT could select one organization to champion each activity and verify if all other participating organizations were identified in the matrix. There was a desire to have the tables clearly indicate who will do what and how individuals and organizations can help. Another suggestion was to organize the summary matrix actions by implementation group (business/industry, agriculture, households, etc.). Large institutional stakeholders are responsible for most of the actions on the tables, and it leaves off actions for smaller or individual stakeholders. The Responsible and/or Participating Organization column was included in the tables to indicate which organizations might lead and/or participate in the activities. It will be the responsibility of SWWT to determine who should be involved and what the roles and responsibilities for each action will be. Also, the process of implementing new actions is discussed in Chapter 8. This process includes the designation of a lead organization for any new action. 4. Table Organization The summary matrix (priority actions table) and the [foundation actions table], in particular, could end up causing actions that are not listed to be overlooked and this is not beneficial. It was agreed that the plan will have to label the summaries with disclaimers warning that specific actions are part of an overall plan. This was addressed in the text and on the tables to highlight to the reader that the tables are not an inclusive list of all the recommendations that need to be carried forward and implemented. One suggestion was that the foundation elements be highlighted within the four focus area tables rather than called out separately in an additional table. The foundation actions were highlighted in the priority actions tables. The importance of the foundation table (Table 7-5) to serve as a roadmap for the next five years was highlighted, and it was suggested to refine the table now. There was also a suggestion to combine or connect the cost and benefit columns to serve as an additional measure. This task was determined to be appropriate for the next level of planning and was not done as part of the WRP. Another suggestion was to reorganize the tables in the matrix to detail conditions and possible actions for specific sections of each of the 10 major tributary or sections of the Kinnickinnic River. This would be an additional table for each sub-watershed that identifies conditions and possible actions for specific sections of each of the 10 major sections of the Kinnickinnic River and the feasibility of each action. Actions might include the reduction or elimination of adverse impacts or possible improvements to the existing condition. Simplified headings such as these could be used:

7-20

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

Whats there
o o o

Current condition of the watershed and water quality Specific areas/issues/conditions of concern (e.g.., FC) Factors/uses/condition (parking lots, factories, concrete channels, etc) affecting areas/issues of concern

Why do we care What can be done

o

Possible actions to reduce or eliminate adverse impact (remove barrier, implement BMP) Actions to improve existing condition (widen buffer, create recreation access)

Feasibility of Action ($, politics, efficacy)

This information can then be combined with other Kinnickinnic tributary tables to show connection to other sub-watershed actions, cost effective coordination, implementation, maintenance and monitoring. The consensus of the SWWT committees was to leave the tables organized the way they are. This allows the reader to view multiple assessment point areas at one time. Much of the information discussed above is included in the WRP chapters. Additional information is contained in the RWQMPU. Some of the more detailed information mentioned above will be gathered in the next phase of implementation when more detailed work plans are developed to conduct specific projects. The more detailed data gathering is beyond the scope of the WRP. Another suggestion indicated that it would be helpful to use photos, words, and images to shape the vision and illustrate the goals to relate these efforts to how they will impact people's day-today lives. Additionally, a narrative, photos, and art would help to paint a vision for people of what the stream might look like when targets/goals accomplished and would help get buy in. The plan contains maps that depict streams within various contexts, including underground and channelized streams and those that flow within naturalized channels. Maps that indicate the locations of point sources, excessive erosion as well as other conditions are also included. 5. Early Actions The SWWT should identify and prioritize projects in the watershed that will be able to provide a quick success. Implementing these projects first will maintain and build the momentum of the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Action Team. These actions can be determined from the overall action lists in Chapter 8. 6. Phosphorus The SWWT Policy committee should look into alternatives to adding phosphorus to drinking water. It was suggested the plan include other treatment and water re-use alternatives instead of 7-21

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan chemical solutions (2a) for dealing with a reduction in use of phosphoric acid for control of lead and copper in drinking water systems. This is a foundation action. 7. Prioritization Process Priority is a complex concept involving both an assessment of conditions and values related to those conditions. The initial versions of Tables 7-1 through 7-4 in the priority actions matrix described the greatest need in terms of the technical analysis and current conditions with the intent to solicit input from the Watershed Action Team. The initial priority designations can guide the Watershed Action Team and SWWT as they move forward. These committees or chairs have the ability to add the value component and adjust the prioritization accordingly. For example, intervention may be more feasible in some places because of varying factors, opportunities, and synergies creating a context for increasing or decreasing the level of priority for each item. Priorities may be revised over time. Another suggestion indicated that it would be beneficial to generate a list that optimizes available resources, leverages additional resources and includes an analysis of visibility of potential projects. Additionally, the prioritization of projects as opportunities arise should also be considered. This action should be discussed by the WAT in the next phase of implementation as discussed in Chapter 8. Comments also suggested a wider index for prioritization than just A or B. This could increase clarity of priorities (such as using A, B, C, and D) that could differ across the watershed. One comment suggested changing the word priority that appears in Column 7. The prioritization was expanded to include A through D. After discussion with the Science Committee, the consensus was to keep the word priority in the Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority column as it indicates a preference for where actions should be implemented first. 8. Goals Another comment suggested that there be a measure of success on the overall goal to show how well actions are accomplishing a goal. Another comment indicated that the region has a wellestablished framework for measuring water quality, including the MMSD H2OInfo tool which is considered valuable. Implementation plans should include a monitoring component. Monitoring is a recommended action included in the WRP.

7-22

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

9. Funding Obtaining future funding and investment would be facilitated by developing a specific plan. The use of mapping to identify problem areas would also improve chances for future funding. The appendices in Chapter 4 contain numerous maps. Additional map files can be obtained through SEWRPC and MMSD. 10. Other Comments by Focus Area Comments included changes to watershed targets including the refinement of associated actions, measures, and prioritization. Specific comments are summarized below for each focus area and are described based on their position in the matrix (action, measure, and priority). 1) Public Health/Bacteria Action The current measures (bacteria) are not the best measure because it doesnt highlight the importance of human waste. Clearly, identifying where human waste is entering our waterways is a high priority. The 52% goal is doing everything in the regional plan; it is possible doing everything on the table still may not get to that number to reach the SEWRPC goal. NGOs are already doing some of these initiatives. In KK5, the NGOs have already found 7 outfalls that need to be further investigated between 6th and 27th streets. There are sections where it makes sense for the Water Action Teams to work on prioritizing. For example, locations where people are using the resource. Knowing how many persons are affected in each sub-watershed may help to prioritize areas in the target for increased recreational use.

Measure

Priority

2) Habitat Action One comment indicated that habitat is an area where Best Management Practices could cumulatively have an impact. Salt levels are important, and inadvertently missed on the tables. Add salt (chlorides) to habitat land based measures and to the foundation table. KK11 closest to the estuary is the location in the watershed with the most chance for high quality aquatic life with in-stream enhancements. Until the concrete comes out upstream, it doesnt make sense to spend money on fish passage.

7-23

Kinnickinnic River Watershed Restoration Plan

KK4 should be changed so it will be monitored for water quality. It is the airport location, so for in stream habitat it is not a priority, but still should be monitored for water quality (edit Table 3 of the matrix). It is difficult in the spreadsheet on habitat to prioritize certain actions in certain areas. Some instream work should happen in the lower KK (estuary AOC area), but otherwise passage and other in-steam work should not be too much of a focus in the Kinnickinnic River watershed until a significant amount of concrete removal occurs. MMSDs Underwood Creek projects accomplishments are instructive here. Rain barrels, green roofs, rain gardens could be added to the table. It may not be realistic to show land purchases as a measure in urbanized areas. The Kinnickinnic summary matrix ought to bump up in importance disconnecting downspouts, rain barrels, rain gardens, etc. above buying land to expand riparian buffers. Most of these comments are addressed in the tables and text in Chapters 7 and 8.

Measure

11. Other Miscellaneous Comments Monitoring -- The focus on monitoring needs could vary by assessment area, depending on water quality, habitat conditions and land use. The Water Action Team needs to think about how to leverage efforts. The blue lines on the map need to be confirmed.

7-24