United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
Great Lakes National
National Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA-905/4-79-029-B
            Volume 2
           The IJC Menomonee
           River Watershed Study

           Land Use, Population And
           Physical Characteristics Of
           The Menomonee River
           Watershed
Menomonee River

-------
                                   FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate adminis-
tration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our
environment.

An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for information
about environmental  problems, management techniques, and new technologies
through which optimum use of the nation's land and water resources can be
assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people
can be minimized.

The Great Lakes National  Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S.  EPA, was
established in Region V, Chicago to provide a specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes.   GLNPO also provides funding and
personnel support to the International Joint Commission activities under
the U.S.- Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Several land use water quality studies have been funded to support the
pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG)  under the
Agreement to address specific objectives related to land use pollution to
the Great Lakes.  This report describes some of the work supported by this
Office to carry out PLUARG study objectives.

We hope that the information and data contained herein will  help planners
and managers of pollution control agencies make better decisions for
carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities.

                              Madonna F. McGrath
                              Director
                              Great Lakes National Program Office

-------
                                                   EPA-905/4-79-029-B
                                                   December 1979
         LAND USE, POPULATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
                 OF THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
                            Volume II

                                by

                           S. G. Walesh
       Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

                            F. Scarpace
                              B. Quirk
                            R. Meridith
                             R.  Fratoni
        Department of Civil and  Environmental Engineering
                                and
               Institute for Environmental  Studies

                       J.  Goodrich-Mahoney
                          G.  V.  Simsiman
                  Wisconsin Water Resources Center

                           R.  Bannerman
             Wisconsin Department of  Natural  Resources

                                for


                U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                         Chicago,  Illinois
                      Grant Number:  R005142

                         Project Officer
                      Ralph G.  Christensen
             Great  Lakes  National  Program  Office
                    Chicago,  Illinois
This Study, funded by a Great Lakes Program grant from the U.S EPA,
was conducted in cooperation v/ith the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, the University of Wisconsin System Water Resources Center
and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

                GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
                 536 SOUTH CLARK STREET, ROOM 932
                     CHICAGO, ILLINOIS  60605

-------
                          DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National
Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V Chicago, and approved for publication.  Mention of
trade names of commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
                              XI

-------
                                PREFACE
     This volume constitutes a detailed description of the Menomonee
River Watershed and is designed in such a fashion as to allow, I. a
description of the Land Data Management System developed by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; II. an evaluation
of the ability to use remote sensing for making a sufficiently
sensitive land use inventory to be applicable to urban settings;
descriptions of land use, soils and landscape features of III, the
entire Watershed, and IV, the 48 subwatersheds of area 132 to 11,610 ha.

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Title Page .



*Part I
*Part II
*Part III
*Part IV




Land Data Management System 	
The Use of Remote Sensing to Determine Land Cover in
the Menomonee River Watershed 	
Description of the Watershed 	
Physical Characteristics of the Subwatersheds ....




I-i
Il-i
. Ill-i
. IV-i
*Detailed contents are presented in the beginning of each part,
                                     IV

-------
            PART I





LAND DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM







              by





         S.  G. WALESH
              I-i

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     The Land Data Management System was developed by the SEWRPC in order to
provide an inventory of land use characteristics to be used in investigating
the impact of land uses on water quality.   The Land DMS is a digital computer-
based system designed to store,  retrieve,  analyze and display, in tabular or
graphic form, land data for the Menomonee River Watershed.

     The Land DMS is a practical tool that can optimize the use of available
data thereby enhancing the quality of the decision-making process in land
and water resource planning.  Practical applications of the land data manage-
ment system prepared for or used by the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study participants include both graphic and tabular display of data.

     Some of the more important advantages of the Land Data Management
System are:  a. handling data at the available level of detail; b. minimal
manual handling of data; c. ease of update and correction; d.  quick response;
e. overlay capability; and f. availability of a variety of tabular and
graphic outputs.

-------
                              CONTENTS - PART I
Title Page	    I-i
Abstract	    I-ii
Contents	    I-iii
Figures	    I-iv
Tables	    I-v
Acknowledgment	    I-vi

    1-1.   Introduction	    1-1
    1-2.   Summary and Conclusions	    1-2
    1-3.   Methods and Procedures	    1-3
            Data Storage Unit	    1-3
            Geo-Referencing  	    1-5
            The Supporting Computer System 	    1-5
            Land Data Contained in the System	    1-5
            Application of the Land DMS	    1-9
              Graphic or tabular display of data	    1-9
              Overlay capabilities 	    1-13
            Advantages and Disadvantages of the System 	    1-13

Bibliography	  .    1-18
                                    I-iii

-------
                                   FIGURES


Number                                                                  Page

 1-1     "The Cell," the basic areal unit in Land DMS	   1-4

 1-2     Computer hardware! and software supporting Land DMS	   1-6

 1-3     Schematic representation of data base phase and Land DMS .  .   1-7

 1-4     Example of graphic output from Land DMS for Township 7
         North, Range 20 East, Section 28 	   1-12

 1-5     Example of graphic output using overlay capabilities from
         Land DMS for a combination of land use and soil data ....   1-15
                                    I-iv

-------
                                  TABLES


Number                                                                 Page

 1-1     Status of data in Land DMS for Menomonee River Watershed .  .   1-8

 1-2     Typical land use coding sheet	1-10

 1-3     Example of tabular output from Land DMS for Township 7
         North, Range 20 East, Section 28 	   1-11

 1-4     Example of tabular output using overlay capabilities
         from Land DMS	1-14

 1-5     Typical applications of the Land DMS developed under
         IJC-Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study:  May 1976
         to February, 1978	1-15
                                    I-v

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENT
     The study covered in this article was a part of the efforts of the
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group,  an organization of the
International Joint Commission, established under the Canada-United States
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972.  Funding was provided by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
                                    I-vi

-------
                             1-1.  INTRODUCTION
     The Land Data Management System (Land DMS) is a digital computer-based
system designed to store, retrieve, analyze and display in tabular or graphic
form land data for the Menomonee River Watershed.  The term "land data" as
used in the Land DMS is a comprehensive concept that denotes all those types
of natural resource and man-made features data that have an areal character-
istic.  Examples include land use, land cover, soil type, civil division and
zoning information.  The System was developed by the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission in order to provide an inventory of land use
characteristics to be used in investigating the impact of various land uses on
water quality.
                                     1-1

-------
                        1-2.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


     The Land Data Management System was developed by the SEWRPC in order to
provide an inventory of land use characteristics to be used in investigating
the impact of land uses on water quality.  The Land DMS is a digital
computer-based system designed to store, retrieve, analyze and display, in
tabular or graphic form, land data for the Menomonee River Watershed.

     The Land DMS is a practical tool that can optimize the use of available
data thereby enhancing the quality of the decision-making process in land
and water resource planning.  Practical applications- of the land data
management system prepared for or used by the IJC-Menomonee River Pilot
Watershed Study participants include both graphic and tabular display of
data.

     Some of the more important advantages of the Land Data Management
System are:

     a.  Handling data at the available level of detail;

     b.  Minimal manual handling of data;

     c.  Ease of update and correction;

     d.  Quick response;

     e.  Overlay capability; and

     f.  Availability of a variety of tabular and graphic outputs.

The principal disadvantage of the system is the initial high cost and cost
of maintenance.   Thus,  such systems are likely to be economically feasible
and otherwise practical in the context of a long range, well-established
comprehensive regional or metropolitan planning program.
                                     1-2

-------
                        1-3.  METHODS AND PROCEDURES
                              Data Storage Unit


     The basic areal unit for storing,  retrieving,  analyzing and displaying
land data is "the cell."  At the time the system was designed,  in 1974,  the
"cell mode" approach to data base organization was  selected over the "area
boundary" approach because the cell mode was judged to be more technically
and economically feasible with respect  to the effort required to code areal
data from primary sources.  Also, less  computer programming and computer
capacity were required to store, retrieve, analyze, and display land data,
including the use of overlay techniques.

     In applying the Land DMS, the geographic unit  of interest, such as  the
watershed or civil division is subdivided into cells by partitioning
United States Public Land Survey quarter sections as shown in Fig. 1-1.
Specifically, each of the four sides of each quarter section is divided  into
eight equal segments and the division points on opposite sides of the quarter
section are connected, resulting in 64  cells per quarter section, each having
a nominal area of 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres).

     The use of cells that are partitions of U.S. Public Land Survey quarter
sections has one principal advantage.  It facilitates geo-referencing of each
cell since horizontal survey control, in the form of state plane coordinates,
has been established by SEWRPC and by local units of government.  Survey
control is transferrable directly by computation to the centers and corners
of each cell for approximately one-third of the U.S. Public Land Survey
quarter section corners in the 6,965 km2 (2,689 mi2) planning region using
field survey methods.  The second reason for forming cells by subdividing each
U.S. Public Land Survey section was to  permit aggregating the resulting  data
to the quarter section level so as to be directly comparable to SEWRPC 1963,
1967 and 1970 land use data and other data that were coded and filed on a
quarter-section basis.

     Each cell is identified by township, range, section, quarter section,
and cell number.  Cells are numbered 1  through 64 within each quarter section,
beginning in the upper right hand corner and proceeding to the left, dropping
down one row and proceeding from left to right, dropping one row and proceed-
ing from right to left and continuing in this serpentine fashion to cell
number 64.  It is important to note that cell-based systems could be developed
within the framework of other rectilinear reference systems such as latitude
and longitude or the Universal Transverse Mercator System.
                                     1-3

-------
• GEOGRAPHIC  UNIT OF
 INTEREST SUCH  AS A
 WATERSHED, CIVIL
 DIVISION, OR  PLANNING
 AREA.
     SECTION-'
NOMINAL AREA= I  Ml;
 U.S. PUBLIC  LAND
 SURVEY SECTION
 LINES
                                              QUARTER SECTION:
                                              EIGHT EQUAL DIVISIONS
                                                   PER SIDE
                                                    CELL:
                                                NOMINAL AREA =
                                                2.5 ACRES (1.0  HA.).
                                              NOMINAL LENGTH OF
                                               SIDE-330 FT. (100 M.)
Fig.  1-1.   "The Cell," the basic areal unit of  the Land DMS.
                                   1-4

-------
                               Geo-Referencing


     An accurate geo-referencing arrangement is required to permit computation
of the area of each cell or of groups of cells and to facilitate display,  in
computer plotted map form, of selected land data.   The best available sources
of information are used to first determine the state plane coordinates of
the U.S. Public Land Survey corners of each quarter section contained wholly
or partly in the geographic unit of interest.   Plane geometry is then used
via software within the Land DMS to calculate the state plane coordinates  of
each corner and of the center of each cell.  The Land DMS also can readily
convert—again using software within the system—the cell corner coordinates
to other geo-referencing systems such as latitude and longitude and the
Universal Transverse Mercator System.
                       The Supporting Computer System


     The combination of hardware and software needed to support the Land DMS
can be broken into four phases as shown in Fig. 1-2:  a. input; b.  data
manipulation; c. data base; and d. output.  Under the input phase,  data are
entered into the Land DMS on either magnetic diskettes or punched cards.  The
second, or data manipulation phase, computer programs that perform contingency
checks on the incoming data, provide for maintenance and updating of the data,
analyze the data, and prepare it for transfer back to the user.  The analysis
ability of this phase facilitates the identification of cells having specified
combinations of land data types.  The data base phase, may be viewed as a
large "file cabinet" with many "drawers," as shown in Fig. 1-3.  Each drawer
corresponds to each of the types of areal data on file in the Land DMS.  The
fourth, or output phase, provides for transfer of land data to the user in a
variety of formats.  For example, land data can be outputted  on a cell basis
or aggregated by civil division or some other geographical area of interest.
Output can be obtained on several media including magnetic tape, punch cards,
line printer and plotter.

     Computer system hardware currently used to operate the Land DMS consists
of an IBM Model 370/135 computer, IBM Model 3410 tape drives and Model 3340
desk packs, an IBM Model 1403 printer and a Calcomp Model 905 drum plotter.
                      Land Data Contained in the System


     To date the system has been applied to the 352 km2 (136 mi2) urbanizing
Menomonee River Watershed.  Table 1-1 sets forth the current status of land
data contained in the Land DMS for the Menomonee River Watershed including the
medium from which each type of land data was extracted, and the type of cell
coding.  Table 1-1 is intended to show the range of data types that can be
accommodated, the variety of data sources and the types of coding that can be
used.
                                     1-5

-------
                            DATA  CODING SHEETS
      INPUT J
      PHASE K

                                        ENTRY

                CARD
                 \
                         1
                      DISKETTE

                                     I
     2.
    DATA
MANIPULATION
   PHASE
                               INPUT CONTROL
       I
  3. DATA  BASE
      PHASE
 (TAPE AND DISK)
                                     I
                              OUTPUT CONTROL
       4.
    OUTPUT
     PHASE
               [PLOTS!      u
CARD
                         1
TABULAR
       Fig. 1-2.  Computer hardware and software supporting Land DMS.
                                1-6

-------
--/—,/--/—7-^-f—./-A ;<
/  /  /  / >v  /  /  / \/

f  / V
      /  Y  y
      '\  A  \
      \ / \  / \
    \ / \ / ^
     v  \
             \	\	A  A  /

 v__v__v__v_:\ \--X-V Y

  \ \  \  \  \  \  \  \ /x
 -_V —V__V__V__V__A.___V__Vx
   \\\\\\\\

-------
                                Table 1-1.   Status of data in the land DMS for the Menomonee River watershed
oo
Data type
Civil division
Sub-basins and subwatersheds
Wildlife habitat (with value
ratings)
Woodland-wetland (with value
ratings)
Park and outdoor
recreation sites
Floodlands
Perennial streams
Conservancy, flood land and
related zoning
Soils**
Ground elevation
Land use-1970
Riverine area land value
Land use-1975
Residential density codes
Monitoring stations and
area tributary to them (12)
Water Resources Center-
special study sites (7)
DNR subwatersheds (48)
Water Resources Center
subwat e rshe ds (51)
Data source
Agency or proj ect

program
SEWRPC watershed planning program
Wisconsin DNR Field Survey
Wisconsin DNR Field Survey
SEWRPC park, recreation and open
space planning program
USCS flood hazard delineation
USGS quadrangle maps
Community Zoning regulations
SCS Soil Survey
	
SEWRPC land use inventory
SEWRPC watershed planning program
SEWRPC land use inventory
SEWRPC land use-transportation
planning program
SEWRPC watershed planning program
Water ResourcesCenter delineation
DNR delineation
Water ResourcesCenter delineation
Type of coding

— 	 • 	 Dominant Percent
Medium characteristic of cell Other
1:24,000 map x
1:24,000 map x
1:4,800 aerial photographs X
1:4,800 aerial photoraphs X
1:24,000 map X
1:24,000 map X
1:24,000 map x*
Miscellaneous maps X
1:24,000 and 1:12,000 maps X
Best available topographic x***
maps
1:4,800 aerial photograph x
overlays
1:24,000 maps x
1:4,800 aerial photographs X
SEWRPC Regional Density X
File
Sub-basin maps and 1:4,800 X
aerial photographs
1:4,800 aerial photographs X
Sub-basin maps and 1:4,800 X
aerial photographs
Sub-basin maps and 1:4,800 X
aerial photographs
                                 *A cell  is  coded  as "perennial  stream"  if such  a  stream  crosses  any  part  of
                                **Soil  type,  degree  of  erosion and  ground slope.
                               ***The ground  elevation  of  a  cell is  taken as  the elevation  at  its  center.

-------
     Land data are extracted from the source material and coded on either a
"dominant characteristic" or "percent of cell" basis.  Coding on the dominant
characteristic basis—which is used when the source data are either unavail-
able at a high degree of resolution or a high degree of resolution is not
needed—consists of determining the dominant characteristic in a given cell
for a particular data type.  Coding on a percent of cell basis is used when
the data are available at high resolution compared to the cell size and when
anticipated uses require high resolution.  For example, it may be desirable
to code land use on a "percent-of-cell" basis with three types of land use
present in a particular cell.  Land use is coded by indicating the amount of
cell area occupied by each of the three land uses with the relative amount
being determined by laying a transparent mylar overlay with a uniform dot
pattern over the cell and recording the number of dots contained within each
of the three land uses.  Table 1-2 is a typical land use coding sheet used
for coding on a percent of cell basis.  Software in the Land DMS uses the
dot counts to determine the absolute area of each of the three land uses
present within the cell, by using as "control totals" the known areas of the
cell itself based on second order precision land survey data developed in
accordance with the land survey and monumentation methods of the SEWRPC.
Coding land use under the dominant characteristics basis would consist of
identifying the land use occupying the largest portion of the cell and assign-
ing it to the entire cell.
                         Application of the Land DMS
     On a practical basis, the Land DMS is applied to a geographic area of
interest such as a watershed or civil division by partitioning the area of
interest into cells, coding the land data types of interest to the cells,
inputting them to the system, and retrieving, analyzing and displaying the
data as needed.  The number of applications of such systems are unlimited
because of the wide variety of combinations of data types that can be used
and because of the variety of output formats available.  Several diverse
applications are presented to illustrate the versatility and practicality of
the system in land and water resources planning.  Each of the applications
is drawn from uses in the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study.
                     Graphic or tabular display of data
     The simplest use of the Land DMS is to display,  in graphic or tabular
form, one or more land data types for a given geographic area.   Tabular output
is shown in Table 1-3 in the form of quantified land use and soil data for an
in-watershed portion of a given U.S. Public Land Survey section.  Graphic
output from the Land DMS is shown in Fig. 1-4 in the form of mapped land use
data by cell for the same section.  Maps can be produced by the system at
essentially any scale, and maps and tables can be constructed in any desired
format.  A variety of special graphic displays can be created,  for example,
isometric representations of surface topographic features.
                                      1-9

-------
            Table 1-2.  Typical land use coding sheet
I
M
O

TOWNSHIP
7





















RANGE
£•/





















SECTION
7





















QUARTER
SECTION
/




















CELL
IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
/
/
£
3
3
V
V
JT
6
6
(,
LAND USE CODE0
jrjr
75
75
Jf
7S
fi-
7£T
7S
90
55
75
NUMBER OF DOTSb

i s^f ^r^ ^-^ ^^ ^/ 62 6,3 &¥• 6,* Jl 75 75 75 75 75" 75 55 75 3 Z5" Z8 2? z? 2g 2? ? 2.0


-------
Table 1-3.   Example of tabular output  from Land DMS  for Township  7
            North,  Range 20 East,  Section  28
LANC USE DATA

SECT ION LANC USE CODE
0720-28 CO
05
i'.:
20
54
55
53
59
60
72
8C
82
91
92
94
TOTAL
BY LAND USE TYPE
AREA IN SECTION
(ACRES)
65.24
11.55
13.02
.28
10.77
8.61
8.24
15.13
15.17
.37
83.82
1. IS
12. 17
22. 9b
127.92
396.44

PERCENT CF
TOTAL
16.46
2.91
3.28
.07
2.72
2.17
2.08
3.82
3.83
.09
21.14
.30
3.07
5.80
32.27
100.01


































SCIL

SECT ION
0720-28-1



















0720-28-2










DATA BY CE
CELL
NO.
01

02



03

V
7
/
60 '

61

62

63

64

01
02
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
LL
SOIL
CODE
0073
0357
0073
OC76
C357
0450
0076
C450


0212
0364
0299
C364
C299
0363
C076
0363
C076
0363
0450
0450
C450
0450
0450
0450
J45C
0450
C450
0450
C450


ACt^ES
.73
1.72
.73
.99
.48
.25
.99
1.47


.25
2.27
1.52
1.01
2.27
.25
.25
^ . 25
.25
2.25
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55


































                              1-11

-------
     Watershed Divide
Quarter section lines
                        cell
                                                      Section  lines
       Fig. 1-4.  Example of graphic output from Land DMS for
                  Township 7 North, Range 20 East, Section 28.
                  The scale is 1:24,000; numbers indicate code
                  of dominant land use.
                               1-12

-------
                            Overlay capabilities
     The Land DMS is capable of retrieving,  analyzing and displaying informa-
tion for areas having particular combinations of land characteristics.   As
shown in Table 1-4,  output using this technique combines land use data and
slope data by subbasin.   This example quantifies a total of six different
land use types together with their associated slopes.

     A portion of the watershed having a particular combination of soil data
and land use data is shown in Fig. 1-5.   This map illustrates residential land
uses and denotes within each cell a code relating to soil type categorized
by soil permeability.

     Typical applications using the Land DMS by participants of the Menomonee
River Pilot Watershed Study are shown in Table 1-5.
                 Advantages and Disadvantages of the System


     The System and other similar systems have positive and negative features
that should be considered by potential users.  Some of the more important
advantages of land data management systems are:

     a.  The data are stored and analyzed at the level of detail, i.e., the
resolution, at which they are available.  This contrasts with manual handling
of data where a tendency exists to aggregate data to larger areal units in
order to minimize the amount of effort involved.

     b.  Minimal manual handling of basic data is required, i.e., after the
data have been entered into the system, analyses are performed by computer
in response to programmed instruction, thereby minimizing errors in data
handling.

     c.  The data can be updated and corrected by entering new or refined
information into the system.

     d.  Because of the relatively quick turnaround time quantitative informa-
tion can be supplied to decision makers in a matter of hours.

     e.  The System processes analytical capability, primarily in its ability
to overlay many land data types.

     f.  These systems provide tabular and graphic materials for decision
making and report preparations.

     The primary disadvantage of these systems is the cost of performing the
initial data coding, loading into the system and maintaining and updating
the data.

     In light of these cost considerations, it appears that digital


                                      1-13

-------
Table 1-4.  Example of tabular output using overlay capabilities from
            Land DMS
LAND USE *
00





TOTAL
05

TOTAL
54




TOTAL
55


TOTAL
80





TOTAL
94

TOTAL
BASIN TOTAL
SLOPE b
01
02
03
04
05
07

03
05

01
02
03
04
05

03
04
05

02
03
04
05
06
07

02
03


ACRES
1.91
6^24
25.11
7.55
15.79
.37
56.97
1.65
l.OS
2.73
.64
1.3£
4.22
.37
1. /4
8.35
.28
.55
.28
1.11
15.20
68. J9
16.76
6.40
7.6G
7.23
121.60
5.05
11.71
16.76
207.52
PERCENT
3.35
10.95
44.07
13.25
27.71
.65
99.96
60.44
39.56
100.00
7.66
16.51
50. 4£
4.43
20.81
99.39
25.45
50.00
25.45
100.9C
12.50
56.24
13.80
5.26
6.25
5.95
100.00
30.13
69. J7
100.00

a
 1970 Land use classification system.

 Percent slope or fall/100 ft on which mapped soil occurs.
Land use data and slope data are by sub-basin.
                                   1-14

-------
Watershed Divide
                                                               cell
                                                              Section lines
      Fig. 1-5.  Example of graphic output using overlay capabilities
                 from Land DMS for a combination of land use and soil
                 data.  The scale is 1:24,000; only cells with a
                 dominant land use of residential type are displayed.
                 Numbers indicate code relating to soil type categorized
                 by soil permeability.
                                  1-15

-------
Table 1-5.   Typical applications of the  land  data  management  system developed under  the  IJC-Menomonee
River Pilot Watershed Study:   May 1976 to  February 1978
                             Application
                                                                          Prepared for or used by
  1.   1:4,800  scale computer maps showing boundaries of three
      monitoring stations to be used for overlaying on aerial
      photographs .

  2.   1:48,000  scale and 1:24,000  scale map of aggregated
      land uses in the Menomonee River Watershed.

  3.   Tabular summary of 1970 land use for all Menomonee
      River watershed sub-basins; 1:24,000  scale computer map
      of dominant 1970 land use per cell.

  4.   Tabular summary of each combination of slope and 1970
      land use existing in sub-basins of the Watershed.

  5.   Tabular summary of percent impervious area by sub-basin.

  6.   Tabular summary of land use by section.

  7.   1:24,000  scale computer map of dominant land use per
      cell.  Tabular summary of land use by sub-basin,
      subwatershed and watershed and by area tributary to
      12 monitoring stations.

  8.   Tabular summary of soil types with a greater than 5%
      distribution and slopes for each sub-basin.

  9.   1:24,000  and 1:48,000  computer maps of dominant
      soil types.

 10.   Tabular summary of 1975 land uses for the 51
      subwatersheds designated for the study.

 11.   Computer soils maps based upon permeability and
      depth to water table.

 12.   A tabular summary of 1975 land use data together
      with soils, slope and erosion information for the
      seven predominantly single land use sites monitored
      in the Watershed.

 13.   1:48,000  scale computer maps combining soils with
      "C" horizon data and 1975 land use data,

 14.   1:4,800  scale maps of soils, slopes, degree of
      erosion and 1975 land use for each of the seven
      predominantly single land use sites.

 15.   Tabular summary of soils, slope and 1975 land data
      by monitoring stations.

 16.   1:24,000  scale computer maps of soils, slope,
      erosion data and 1975 generalized  land use for each
      monitoring station.

 17.   1:126,720  scale computer map of the 51 subwatersheds
      designated for the study.

 18.   Tabular summary of 1975 land use and degree of
      imperviousness for each subwatershed.

 19.   Tabular  summary of 1975 land use  and degree of
      imperviousness for the sub-basins  tributary to  the
      mainstem monitoring stations.

 20.   Use of cell system to assign density code  to residential
      lands  to estimate  imperviousness of an area.

 21.   Tabular summary of soils, slope, imperviousness  and
      1975  land use data for  51 subwatersheds designated  for
      the study.

 22.   1:126,720   scale computer map of the 51 subwatersheds
      designated  for the study.

 23.   Tabular summary of soil and  slope  data  for each
      subwatershed.

 24.   Tabular summary of combination  of  land  use,  soils  and
      slope  data  for each  subwatershed.

 25.   Tabular summary of  land use,  soils and  slope  data
      for  the  sub-basins  tributary  to the mainstem monitoring
      stations.
UW-Madison-Water Resources Center



UW-Madison-Geology Department


Marquette University



Marquette University


Marquette University

UW-Madison-Water Resources Center

WDNR-Madison





WDNR-Mllwaukee


UW-Madison-Geology Department


UW-Madison-Water Resources Center


UW-Madison-Geology Department


UW-Madison-Water Resources Center





UW-Madison-Geology Department


UW-Madison-Water Resource Center



UW-Madison-Water Resources Center


UW-Madison-Water Resources Center



UW-Madison-Water Resources Center


WDNR-Madison


WDNR-Madison
 UW-Madison-Water  Resources  Center
 WDNR-Madison
 WDNR-Madison
 WDNR-Madison
 WDNR-Madison
                                                1-16

-------
computer-based data handling systems are likely to be economically feasible
in land and water resource research and planning projects only where
there is extensive use of the system over a long period.
                                     1-17

-------
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY - I
Kiefer, R. W. and M. L. Robbins.  1973.  Computer-based Land Use Suitability
     Maps.  J. Surv. and Mapping Div., ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SUI, Proc. Paper
     10015, pp. 39-62.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.  1976.  Alternative
     Plans and Recommended Plan.  In:  A Comprehensive Plan for the Menomonee
     River Watershed, Planning Report No. 26, Vol. 2.  Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.  1976.  Floodland Infor-
     mation Report for the Pewaukee River.   Community Assistance Planning
     Report No. 9, Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Viessman, W., T. E. Harbaugh and J. W. Knapp.  1972.  Minor Structure Design.
     In:  Introduction to Hydrology, Intext Educational Publ., New York,
     pp. 269-315.

Walesh, S. G.  1976.  Floodland Management:  The Environmental Corridor
     Concept.  SEWRPC Technical Record, Vol. 3, No.  6, Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Williams, D. L., P. G. Rowe and C.  P. Sharpe.  1975.  Improved Tools for Land
     Management:  Summing it up for the Future.  Urban Land 34(9):3-7.
                                      1-18

-------
                  PART II

  THE USE OF REMOTE SENSING TO DETERMINE
LAND COVER IN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
                    by
                F.  SCARPACE
                B.  QUIRK
                R.  MERIDITH
                R.  FRATONI
                    Il-i

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     Land cover information for a hydrological model was provided by digital
analysis of aerial photography.  A fast method for obtaining land cover infor-
mation in the Menomonee River Watershed was tested and found to be cost
effective.  Thematic representations as well as tabular information was
produced.  Accuracy of approximately 90% was determined for the digitally
classified imagery when compared to ground truth.
                                   Il-ii

-------
                             CONTENTS - PART II
Title Page
Abstract .
Contents .
Figures
Tables
    II-l.
    II-2.
    II-3.
    II-4.
                                                            Il-i
                                                            Il-ii
Introduction  	
Conclusions   	
Materials, Methods and Procedures
  Digitized Photography 	
  Application 	
Results and Discussion  	
References
Il-iv
II-v

II-l
II-2
II-3
II-3
II-9
11-11

11-15
                                      II-iii

-------
                                 FIGURES


Number                                                                Page

 II-l   Kodak Aerochrome MS Film 2448, Estar Base 	    II-4

 II-2   Spectral sensitivity curves for Kodak Aerochrome MS Film
        2448, Estar Base 	    II-5

 II-3   Typical K/log E curve for a multi emulsion image 	    II-8

 II-4   Procedure for digitally analyzing photographic imagery ...   11-10
                                  Il-iv

-------
                                -TABLES
Number                                                               Page
 II-l    Land cover classifications for Schoonmaker and
         Noyes Creeks 	    11-12

 II-2    Land cover classifications for selected urban areas in
         the Great Lakes Basin expressed as percentages  	    11-13

 II-3    Cost estimates for digital analysis of high altitude
         aircraft imagery for land cover classification  (cost/
         image) 	    11-14
                                 II-v

-------
                             II-l.  INTRODUCTION
     Following passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-
500) in 1972, state and federal agencies intensified their interest in point
and non-point sources of water pollution.  Until recently emphasis has been on
point sources because they are easier to detect, monitor and treat.  Currently,
greater research emphasis is being placed on non-point water pollution; two
sources of particular concern are urban uses and construction sites.

     Since one of the important input parameters to the overland flow model
LANDRUN—which was being tested in the investigation—is land cover, remote
sensing was investigated as a possible method of obtaining land cover informa-
tion.  The most widely used remote sensing technique is manual photo interpre-
tation of large scale aerial imagery in conjunction with ground-based field
work.  Although sufficiently accurate for land cover interpretation in urban
areas, this method has proven costly and time-consuming when implemented on
areas larger than a few square miles (1).

     A second method of obtaining land cover information is by computer
analysis of LANDSAT tapes (2,3,4).  Although this method is faster and less
expensive, it has several drawbacks.  One is the 1.1 acre (0.5 ha) resolution
cell of the LANDSAT satellite.  This requires the amount of impervious surface
to be measured indirectly by assigning to each land cover category a predeter-
mined amount of imperviousness.  The total amount of impervious surface for
each land cover category is calculated by multiplying the number of cells
classified for each land cover by the percentage of imperviousness for the
land cover category, times 1.1 acres.  This technique seems to work well in
rural areas, but is less accurate than other techniques in urban areas (5).

     A second problem, particularly in Wisconsin, is acquiring cloudless
LANDSAT imagery.  The ideal season to obtain imagery for mapping land cover,
especially impervious land cover, is in the early spring or late fall.
Unfortunately this is when the number of cloudless days are at a minimum (6).
This time restriction favors analysis of aerial photography instead of LANDSAT
imagery for land cover interpretation because the LANDSAT satellites have a
fixed schedule while aerial photography can be acquired on any cloud-free day.
The goal of this investigation was to develop and test the technique of
digital analysis of aerial photography for land cover mapping in urban areas.
                                    II-l

-------
                            II-2.   CONCLUSIONS
     A cost-effective method of mapping current land cover in an urban area
has been demonstrated.  The technique involves the use of digitized aerial
imagery (either color or color-infrared)  that has been properly calibrated.
The calibrated digital imagery is classified using a two-stage elliptical
table-look-up algorithm which produces a tabular presentation of different
land cover classes as well as a thematic representation.   The accuracy of
the classification was checked by ground calibration and photo interpretation
of reconstituted images.

     To effectively use hydrologic transport models such as LANDRUN, accurate,
current information on land cover is needed.  It is believed that remote
sensing techniques may be the only practical method of ascertaining such
information in a timely fashion.  The digital analysis of aerial imagery
seems to be superior to the analysis of LANDSAT tapes in an urban area
because of the better resolution and versatility in choosing the date of
imagery.
                                   II-2

-------
                II.3  MATERIALS, METHODS AND PROCEDURES


                        Digitized Photography


     Procedures for digitally analyzing aerial photography are essentially
the same for color or color-infrared film, the significant difference being
in the interpretation of the data derived from the densitometric analysis of
the imagery.  Since the analysis procedures are similar for all types of multi-
emulsion imagery, only a detailed description for color films will be presented.
Extensions to the analysis of color-infrared imagery will be indicated in the
appropriate sections.

     Incident energy from the earth's surface is recorded on a color image in
the form of various amounts of colored dyes.  The colored dyes used are yellow,
magenta, and cyan.  At each spatial location on the processed imagery there
exists some concentration of yellow, magenta, and cyan dyes.  In general, the
concentrations of each of these dyes differ from each other as well as differ-
ing from the dye concentrations at adjacent parts of the imagery.  It is the
intent of densitometry on multi-emulsion imagery to infer the amounts of each
dye at each spatial location of interest on the imagery.   From this data the
amount and (to some extent) the spectral distribution of the incident energy
on the unexposed film can be inferred.

     The structure of a typical color film is shown in Fig. II-l.  From the
point of view of the user, the three important layers are the ones that are
sensitive to the blue, green and red light.  Curves representing the sensi-
tivities of these layers can be found in Fig. II-2.  After the film has been
exposed to visible light and processed, yellow, magenta and cyan dyes are
formed in their respective layers.  In a color reversal film (such as Kodak
Aerochrome MS Film  2448) the amount of dye formed in each layer depends in-
versely on the amount of light sensitizing each layer.  An object that appears
blue in nature will, after processing, cause an image to contain a relatively
small amount of yellow dye, and proportionately larger amounts of magenta and
cyan dyes.  Since magenta and cyan dyes absorb the green and red light, the
image will appear blue in normal lighting conditions.  To infer the amounts
of the dyes present in the imagery, some type of measurement must be made on
the developed transparency.

     These measurements are made by placing the imagery on a scanning micro-
densitometer which converts the amounts of dye in each of the image layers
to a density value.

     Densitometry on multi-emulsion imagery has been described adequately
elsewhere (7,8,9), thus only a short review of the salient points are pre-
sented here.   Because of the colored dyes present in the imagery, any density
                                    II-3

-------
                  BLUE  SENSITIVE
               YELLOW FORMING LAYER
                   YELLOW  FILTER
              CLEAR AFTER  PROCESSING
                  GREEN  SENSITIVE
              MAGENTA  FORMING  LAYER
                   RED  SENSITIVE
                CYAN  FORMING  LAYER
                    BASE  LAYER
Fig. II-l.  Kodak Aerochrome MS Film 2448, Estar Base.
                        II-4

-------
(J1
                      2.0^
                      1.0-
                                                        Cyan
                                                        forming
                                                        layer
                      0  0.
                     -1.0
                         400
450
500
600
650
700
                                                    Wavelength, nm
                       Fig.  II-2.  Spectral sensitivity curves for Kodak Aerochrome MS Film 2448, Estar
                                  Base.

-------
measurement on multi-emulsion imagery is wavelength dependent.  Spectral
density is a measure of density at a particular wavelength.  Any density
measurement on multi-emulsion film is an integral density measurement.  It is
an integral density measurement because the measured density depends on the
individual dye densities of each of the film layers.  The integral spectral
density for a multi-emulsion image can be expressed mathematically as:


                    D(X) = BY(A) + DM(A) + DC(A) + DB(A)              Eq. (1)

where:     D(A) is the integral spectral density
          DY(A) is the spectral density of the yellow dye layer
          DM(A) is the spectral density of the magenta dye layer
          DC(A) is the spectral density of the cyan dye layer
          DB(A) is the spectral density of the base layer

and A is the wavelength of the density measurement.

     The densities on the right hand side of Eq. (1) are known as spectral
analytical densities.  The spectral analytical dye densities can be represented
as a parameter times a unit spectral density function for each of the dyes.
The dye densities can be written:


                              DY(A) * K  • Y(A)

                              DM(A) = K  • M(A)                       Eq. (2)
                                       m
                              DC(A) = K  • C(A)


where:    Y(A), M(A) and C(A) are the unit spectral dye densities for the
             yellow, magenta and cyan dyes, respectively.
          K , K  and K  are the parameters which characterize the amount of
           y   m      c
             dye present in the image.  Equation (1) can be rewritten as:

                    D(A) = K Y(A) + K M(A) + K C(A) 4- DB(A)           Eq. (3)
                            y        m        c

     If the functions Y(A), M(A), C(A) and DB(A) are known, it is possible to
determine the parameters K  , K  and K  from measurements of the integral
              r           y   m      c
density at three different wavelengths.  The base  density  (DB) can be measured
at some overexposed portion  (positive transparency) or underexposed portion
(negative transparency) of the imagery.  If the integral density measurements
are taken at A1} \2 and AS  (three different wavelengths),  three different
equations can be generated from Eq.  (3).  Letting  AD(A) =  D(A) - DB(A), then:
                                    II-6

-------
                    AD(Ai) = K Y(*i)  + K M(Aj)  + K C(Aj)
                              y         m         c

                    AD(A2) = K Y(A2)  + K M(A2)  + K C(A2)               Eq.  (4)
                              y         m         C

                    AD(A3) = KY(A3)  +
This set of equations can be solved and the solution is represented as:
                    K  = CnAD(Ai) + C12AD(A2) + C13AD(A3)

                    K  = C2iAD(A!) + C22AD(A2) + C23AD(A3)             Eq.  (5)
                     m
                    K  = C3iAD(A!) + C32AD(A2) + C33AD(A3)
                     c

     Thus, the parameters K , K  and K , can be determined from three integral
                           y   m      c
spectral density measurements if the nine transformation parameters (C. . ,  ) are

known.  The nine transformation parameters are dependent only on the character-
istics of the dyes in the film and not on the specific combination of dyes
which represent a scene on the imagery.  These nine parameters are used in
constructing characteristic curves for each dye layer of the film.

     Once these parameters of a color or color- infrared film are known, radio-
metric calibration of the aerial image can take place.  The intent of most
remote sensing applications of photography is to infer some ground phenomena
from a measurement (or interpretation) on the film imagery.  It should be
noted than film density is not the quantity to be correlated to the reflected
energy from the ground.  The dye densities formed in films depend — in a non-
linear way — not only on the amount of energy and its spectral distribution
striking the unexposed film, but also on the processing of the imagery.

     The intent of a radiometric calibration is to derive the relationship
between film density (or dye constants) and the light impinging on the un-
exposed film.  This relationship is called a characteristic or K/log E curve.
It is called a  K/log  E curve because for a limited range of exposures
(incident energy) there is a near linear relationship between density and the
logarithm of the incident energy.  An example of such a curve can be found in
Fig. II-3.  Note there is a different characteristic curve for each layer of
the film.

     Once a characteristic curve has been generated for a specific roll of
imagery, the use of it in the analysis procedure is relatively straightforward.
After the analytical densities have been found for a particular spot on the
imagery, the characteristic curve is used to find the three exposures (one
for each layer) which represent the incident energy at that spot on the un-
exposed film.  These exposures are the values to be correlated with the ground
phenomena via the digital analysis programs.  In the Menomonee River Pilot

                                    II-7

-------
      2.25  -
      2.00
      1.75
      1.50
    -  1.25  -

   4-1
   •H
   co

M  g  i.oo  H
I   f~\
00
       .75  -



       .50  -



       .25  -
       .00
          -3.00

                      D
  \
              I


          ^xN
                                                  A yellow layer


                                                  D magenta layer


                                                  • cyan layer
I
                   -2.50        -2.00         -1.50

                                     Log exposure, log E


Fig. II-3.  Typical K/log E curve for a multi emulsion image.
i i  i 1 I i
    -1.00
                                                  -0.50
                                                                                    TTTTj
                                                                                       .06

-------
Watershed Study these values were correlated to land cover.


                                  Application


     In order to test this technique two subwatersheds were chosen in the
Menomonee River Basin, namely Schoonmaker and Noyes Creeks.   Schoonmaker Creek
is a completely developed medium density urban area while Noyes Creek is in
the early stages of urbanization.  NASA color-infrared imagery—at a scale of
1:120,000—of the areas was digitized on an Optronics P-1700 scanning micro-
densitometer.  The ground resolution for both subwatersheds was 6.0 m .   The
computer tapes produced for these areas by the Optronics system were corrected
to exposures and placed on disk files.  Training areas representing the
different land cover categories were chosen in each subwatershed.   After the
training areas were checked for accuracy, a statistical analysis was performed
on them thereby providing the needed statistics for the elliptical classifier.

     This type of classifier first creates an ellipsoid in spectral space from
the statistics derived for each training area.   The classifier then determines
if the spectral signature of each pixel falls within the various ellipsoids.
If a pixel falls into only one ellipsoid, the pixel is classified as being of
that class.  If the pixel falls into more than one ellipsoid, the minimum
distance to the mean of each ellipsoid is calculated and the pixel is classi-
fied to the closest mean.  Pixels that do not fit into any of the training
area ellipsoids remain unclassified.  A schematic of the entire process is
shown in Fig. II-4.
                                     II-9

-------
                    KEY
I
M
O
                                      COMPUTER TAPE
COMPUTER  FILE
  DATA-FILE - INPUT
  DATA-FILES -OUTPUT
                                      COMPUTER
                                         PRINTOUT
                                                 22
                                                                   HSGRAM




UTILITY PROGRAM
COPYANOT, COPY-
BAND. INSPECT,
MODANOT
TRANSFORMATION
PROGRAMS
                            AVESET, BRTMAP,
                            ELOGE.FALLOFF
                            FLMRATIO,MIRROR.
                            NORMRATIO,
                            SCALE. SUBSET,
                              TEXTURE,
                              TRANSFORM
                                                                       BLOWUP



	 1 UU 1 LWC




r

o
                                                                                        FILM70
                                                         Fig. II-4.   Procedure  for digitally  analyzing
                                                                       photographic imagery.

-------
                        II-4.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
     The results of the classifications for each subwatershed after several
iterations are shown in Table II-l.  For the computer classifications five
major land cover categories were chosen:  impervious surfaces; streets, side-
walks, rooftops, etc.; tree cover; vegetative cover; water; and a transition
class.  This class usually contains a combination of the impervious and
vegetative covers and represents boundary conditions between other land
cover categories.

     Besides a tabular product both color slides and prints were produced of
the two classified subwatersheds.  A ground check of the classifications
showed them to be approximately 90% accurate.

     Three other urban watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin were investigated
using this technique.  Imagery—of Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario;
Toledo, Ohio; and Rochester, New York—was obtained from the EROS Data Center
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  The scale of the imagery was approximately
1:130,000 and each image was digitized on the Optronics system at 50 micron
intervals, making the picture element (pixel) approximate an area on the
ground of 6.5 m .  Several problems hindered the digital analysis process in
these areas.  First, film wedges were not available from EROS for any of the
imagery.  This precluded correction of the digitized data resulting in
inaccuracies in classifying land cover.   Secondly, watershed and subwatershed
coordinates and boundaries within these urban areas were not provided.  There-
fore, no classifications for actual watersheds or subwatersheds were performed;
rather, simulated watershed boundaries were contrived so that the process of
classification of land cover within an outlined watershed could at least be
practiced and tested.  The results of the classification on these areas are
presented in Table II-2.

     A listing of typical costs for classifying various sets of digitized data
within these watersheds is presented in Table II-3.   This table includes large
data sets as well as smaller subsets (subwatersheds) of data and the cost
includes both materials and computer costs.
                                     11-11

-------
Table II-l.  Land cover classifications  for  Schooninaker and
             Noyes Creeks
                      Schooninaker Creek,          Noyes Creek,
Landcover                     %                        %
Impervious                   63.6                    38.0

Vegetation                   25.4                    50.0

Forest                        0                       3.7

Transition                   10.7                     3.3

Water                         0                       0.05

Unclassified                  0.3                     4.95

                            100                     100
                            11-12

-------
Table II-2.  Land cover classifications for selected urban areas in the Great Lakes Basin
             expressed as percentages


M
M
1
t-'
CO
Cover
Impervious
Grass
Trees
Other/
unclassified
Toledo-1
63
11
20
6
Toledo-2*
33
0
0
67
Toledo-3**
67
3
25
5
Toledo-4**
41
14
33
12
Windsor-1 Windsor-2**
28 14
28
78
28
16 8
Roches ter-1
45
17
28
10
  *0nly impervious surfaces were classified.
 **Simulated subwatersheds.

-------
Table II-3.  Cost estimates for digital analysis of high altitude aircraft
             imagery for land cover classification (cost/image)
Process
Obtain film
Scan film/store digitized data on tape
Run OPTRON
Orient pixels with image from initial level slice
Create subset of data
Create ratio of subsetted data
Level slice of ratio (all option)
Level slice of ratio (overprint option)
Select training sets from overprinted maps
Run TRAIN, CLASSBAR, and ISGRAM
Select standard deviations for training set
ellipsoid
Run LOADE3 and TAB CLASS
Add more training sets; follow previous two steps
(in necessary)
Store final classification
Run COLOR
Run OUTLINE
Run FILM70 for 6 files
Make film
Take slides from I2S
Process slides
TOTAL
Cost*, $
$15.00
12.00
3.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
4.00
0
2.00
0

3.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
6.50
0
3.00
4.00
$62.00
Time, hr
0
2
0.5
1
0.25
0.25
1
1.5
1
1.5

0.5
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
1
0
20 .0
^Includes materials and computer costs
                                    11-14

-------
                               II.  REFERENCES
1.  Jackson, T. J., R. M. Ragan and W. N. Fitch.  Test of LANDSAT-Based Urban
    Hydrologic Modeling.  J. Water Resource Planning and Management Div.,
    Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol. 103, No. WR1, Proc. Paper 12950, 1977.
    pp. 141-158

2.  Jackson, T. J. and R. M. Ragan.  Value of LANDSAT in Urban Water Resources
    Planning.  J. Water Resource Planning and Management Div., Am.  Soc. Civil
    Engineers, Vol. 103, No. WR1, Proc. Paper 12906, 1977.  pp. 33-46.

3.  McKeon, J. B., L.  E. Reed, R. H.  Rogers, R.  M. Ragan and 0. K.  Wiegard.
    LANDSAT Derived Cover and Imperviousness Categories for Metropolitan
    Washington:  An Urban/Nonurban, Computer Approach.  In:  Proceedings of
    the 44th Convention Am.  Soc. Photogrammetry, Washington, D.C.,  1978.
    pp. 226-239.

4.  Dallam, W. C., A. Rango and L. Shima.  Hydrologic Land Use Classification
    of the Patuxent River Watershed Using Remotely Sensed Data.  In:  Proceed-
    ings of the NASA Earth Resources  Survey Symposium, Houston, Texas, 1975.
    pp. 2351-2364.

5.  Jackson, T. J.  Computer Aided Techniques for Estimating the Percent of
    Impervious Area from LANDSAT Data.  Workshop for Environmental  Applications
    of Multispectral Imagery, Fort Belvoir,   Virginia, 1975.  pp.  140-155.

6.  American Society of Photogrammetry.  Manual  of Color Aerial Photography.
    Am. Soc. Photogrammetry, Church Falls, Virginia, 1968.

7.  American Society of Photogrammetry.  Manual  of Remote Sensing.   Am. Soc.
    Photogrammetry, Church Falls, Virginia, 1975.

8.  Scarpace, F. L.  Densitometry on  Color and Color IR Imagery.  In:
    Proceedings of 43rd Convention, Am. Soc. Photogrammetry, Washington, D.C.,
    1977.   pp. 301-318.

9.  Evans, R., W. Hanson and W.  Brewer.  Principles of Color Photography.
    John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1953.
                                    11-15

-------
          PART III

DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED


              by
       G.  V. SIMSIMAN
     J.  GOODRICH-MAHONEY
         G.  CHESTERS
        R.  BANNERMAN
             Ill-i

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     The Menomonee River Watershed  is  described in order to establish a
factual base upon which to draw conclusions concerning the interactions of
the ecosystem and the impact on water quality.   The description includes
natural and cultural features such as population,  land use,  climate,
physiography and geology, soils and water storage  areas.   Also included
in the description are the characteristics and  management practices existing
in the drainage areas of the mainstem and predominantly single land use
monitoring sites.
                                   Ill-ii

-------
                             CONTENTS - PART III
Title Page	Ill-i
Abstract 	  Ill-ii
Contents 	  Ill-ill
Figures  	  Ill-iv
Tables	III-v

   III-l.  Introduction  	  III-l
   III-2.  Watershed Characteristics 	  III-2
             Location	III-2
             Population Size and Distribution  	  III-2
             Land Use and Land Cover	•  •  III-5
               General	III-5
               Mainstem and tributary stream monitoring stations .  .  .  111-14
               Predominantly single land use monitoring stations .  .  .  111-15
             Climate 	  111-18
               General climatic conditions 	  111-18
               Temperature 	  111-19
               Precipitation 	  111-21
             Physiography and Topography 	  111-22
             Geology 	  111-25
             Soils	• .  .  111-28
               Soil associations 	  111-28
               Ozaukee-Mequon  	  111-28
               Ozaukee-Martinton-Saylesville 	  111-31
               Hochheim-Theresa  	  111-32
               Pella-Lamartine 	  111-32
               Houghton-Palms-Ogden  	  111-33
               Soil texture, slope, permeability and hydrologic
                 group	111-33
             Surface Water Storage Area  	  111-37

References 	  111-38
Appendices
   III-A   Land Use and Landscape Characteristics at the Predominantly
             Single Land Use Monitoring Sites  	  111-39
                                   Ill-iii

-------
                                   FIGURES


Number                                                               Page


III-l     The Menomonee River Watershed 	   III-3

III-2     Generalized land use in the Menomonee River Watershed,
          1975	III-ll

III-3     Station locations within the Menomonee River Watershed  .   111-12

III-4     Generalized soil map of the Menomonee River Watershed .  .   111-30

III-A-1   Allis Chalmers Corporation.  STORET number 413616 ....   111-41

III-A-2   Stadium Interchange, 1-94.   STORET number 413615  ....   111-42

III-A-3   Brookfield Square Shipping Center.   STORET number
          683089  	   111-43

III-A-4   Noyes Creek.   STORET number 413011  	   111-44

III-A-5   Schoonmaker Creek.   STORET number 413010  	   111-45

III-A-6   City of Wauwatosa.   STORET number 413034  	   111-46

III-A-7   Timmerman Airport.   STORET number 413614  	   111-47

III-A-8   City of New Berlin.   STORET number 413625 	   III-4L

III-A-9   Donges Bay Road.   STORET number 463001  	   111-49

III-A-10  Village of Elm Grove.   STORET number 683090 	   111-50
                                   Ill-iv

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                 Page


III-l     Population  in the Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin
          and the United States	III-4

II1-2     Population in the Menomonee River Watershed by county and
          civil division	III-6

III-3     Land use description and area and percent of each use in
          the Menomonee River Watershed for 1975	III-7

III-4     Listing of the land use codes consolidated into 14 land use
          categories	III-9

III-5     Urban and rural land uses inventories for the Menomonee
          River Watershed in 1970 and 1975 as determined by the
          S.E. Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 	  Ill-10

III-6     Menomonee River Watershed monitoring stations with area for
          each land use category:  1975	111-13

III-7     Characteristics and some management practices in the
          mainstem monitoring drainage areas  	  111-16

III-8     Characteristics of the predominantly single land use
          drainage areas  	  111-17

III-9     Air temperature (°C) characteristics at selected locations
          in the Menomonee River Watershed  	  111-20

111-10    Precipitation (cm) characteristics at selected locations
          in the Menomonee River Watershed  	  111-23

III-ll    Stratigraphy of the Menomonee River Watershed 	  111-26

111-12    Lithology and water-yielding characteristics of the
          unconsolidated deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene Ages
          in the Menomonee River Watershed  	  111-29

111-13    Areal extent and some water management characteristics  of
          the various soil types in the Menomonee River Watershed . .  111-34
                                   III-v

-------
Number                                                              Page


111-14    Summary of the areal (ha)  extent  of  soil textural  class,
          slope,  permeability of A horizon  and hydrologic  group  in
          the Menomonee River Watershed 	  111-36

III-A-1   Land use type and area and percent of each  use in  the
          predominantly single land  use monitoring sites for
          1975	111-39
                                   Ill-vi

-------
                            III-l.   INTRODUCTION
     A watershed is a complex of natural and man-made features which interact
to comprise a changing environment for all life.   The water quality character-
istics  of the Menomonee River Watershed are primarily a function of the
activities of man as he interacts and alters the  natural features of the
Watershed.  A watershed may be viewed as a large  ecosystem composed of natural
resources, man-made features, and the human and animal populations, all of
which interact synergistically to alter the water quality characteristics of
the watershed.  Of primary concern are the changes in the ecosystem which
affect the water quality of the watershed and the final receiving body—
Lake Michigan.

     Because of the existence of a diversity of land uses in the Menomonee
River Watershed, it is well chosen as a study site for determining the
impact of man's activities on water quality.  Urban land uses range from an
intensely-developed commercial-industrial complex in the lower quarter of
the Watershed to low to medium-density residential areas in the center half
of the Watershed, while the upper quarter is in the process of conversion
from rural to urban land use.

     The purpose of this Section is to describe the existing ecosystem,
thereby establishing a factual base upon which to draw conclusions concerning
the interactions of the ecosystem—especially man's activities—and the impact
on water quality.  Additionally, this information will be used to extrapolate
the findings to other urban centers within the Great Lakes Basin.
                                    III-l

-------
                      III-2.   WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
                                  Location
     The Menomonee River Watershed, as shown in Fig.  III-l,  is a surface
water drainage unit, 355 km2 in areal extent, discharging to the Milwaukee
River in the City of Milwaukee ^ 1.4 km upstream of the entrance of the
Milwaukee River to Lake Michigan.   The relatively narrow Watershed is
bounded on the north and east by the Milwaukee River Watershed; on the south
by the Kinnickinnic River, Root River and Oak Creek Watersheds; and on the
west by the Rock River and Fox River Watersheds.   The western boundary of the
Watershed marks the subcontinental separation of the'Great Lakes-St.  Lawrence
River and the Illinois-Mississippi drainage basins.

     The Menomonee River has its source in a large woodland wetland area
located in the northeastern corner of the Village of Germantown in Washington
County.  From its source, the river flows southeasterly through the Villages
of Germantown and Menomonee Falls  into Milwaukee County.  It is joined by
the Little Menomonee River in the  City of Milwaukee near state highway 100
and W. Hampton Avenue, the Little  Menomonee River having its source in the
City of Mequon in Ozaukee County and flowing southerly through the Cities of
Mequon and Milwaukee to its junction with the Menomonee River.  From its
junction with the Little Menomonee, the Menomonee River flows southeasterly
through the Cities of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa to be joined by Underwood
Creek near W. North Avenue.  Underwood Creek drains portions of the Cities
of Wauwatosa, Brookfield, West Allis, and New Berlin, as well as the Village
of Elm Grove and the Town of Brookfield.  Honey Creek, which drains portions
of the Cities of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, West Allis, and Greenfield and the
Village of Greendale, joins the Menomonee River from the south near 72nd
Street.  From its junction with Honey Creek the Menomonee River continues to
flow in a generally southeasterly  direction through the Cities of Wauwatosa
and Milwaukee, entering the Lake Michigan estuary at a low dam located near
N. 29th St. in the City of Milwaukee.
                      Population Size and Distribution
     The population of the Watershed was estimated at 336,824 in 1975.   As
shown in Table III-l, the population increased from 1900 to 1970 at rates
generally greater than those of the state and nation.  During 1970 to 1975,
the population decreased by 2% while the state and nation increased by  4%.
This decline is attributed to the migration of people from the larger urban
centers to suburban-rural areas within and outside of the Watershed.   The
outward population movement occurred mainly from the cities and villages

                                    III-2

-------
                                            KINNICKINNIC



                                                RIVER



                                                 WATERSHED
Fig.  III-l.   The Menomonee River Watershed.
                                    III-3

-------
Table III-l.  Population in the Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin and
              the United States
Population
Menomonee
River Watershed


Year
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1975


Number
94,917
122,275
151,271
200,403
213,295
240,006
309,121
344,614
336,824
Change
during
preceding
period, %
—
29
24
32
6
12
29
12
-2
Wisconsin


Number
2,069,042
2,333,860
2,632,067
2,939,006
3,137,587
3,434,575
3,952,771
4,417,933
4,581,701
Change
during
preceding
period, %
—
13
13
12
7
9
15
12
4
United


Number
75,994,575
91,972,266
105,710,620
122,775,046
131,669,270
151,325,798
179,323,175
203,184,772
212,245,000
States
Change
during
preceding
period, %
—
21
15
16
7
15
18
13
4
                                     III-4

-------
of Milwaukee County (Table III-2).  All other counties and civil divisions,
except the Village of Butler, showed a population increase.  In 1975,
population density of the Watershed was 949 people/km2, however, some 80%
of the population resides in the lower portion of the Watershed in Milwaukee
County, and the remaining 20% in the urbanizing areas of Ozaukee, Washington
and Waukesha Counties.  During the last two decades, the average population
density of the Watershed has increased > 40% causing aggrevated water quality
problems.
                           Land Use and Land Cover
                                   General
      The Land Data Management System (Land DMS)  developed by the Southeastern
 Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)  provides for 79 land use
 descriptions (1).   Table III-3 lists land use descriptions and associated
 computer codes and Watershed percentage and area in each land use for 1975.
 It should be noted that the Land DMS does not contain information on land
 cover, such as the area covered by impervious surfaces.   Land cover informa-
 tion must be obtained from other sources or estimated from the particular
 land uses in the area under study.

     The 79 land use descriptions have been consolidated into 14 land use
categories (Table III-4).  The consolidation groups similar land
uses and land uses that have similar potential for non-point pollution.  The
14 land use categories for 1970 and 1975—with Watershed area and percent
distribution—are presented in Table III-5.  The increase in urban land use
during the 5-yr period is a continuing reflection of the historic growth
within the Watershed (Fig. III-2).  The predominantly urban characteristics
of the Watershed are clearly evident as is the pattern of historic growth
from the lower to the upper parts of the Watershed.  The dominant urban land
use in the Watershed is residential and encompasses 9,087 ha, or approximately
26% of the total Watershed area.  Most of the larger contiguous non-urbanized
lands are located in Washington and Ozaukee Counties with small parcels of
rural lands remaining in the northeastern corner of Waukesha County and the
northwest corner of Milwaukee County.

     Figure III-3 and Table III-6 show the location and associated land uses
for the monitoring stations in the Watershed.  Table III-6 allows a rapid
evaluation of the distribution of the different land uses at each monitoring
station.  It should be noted that the first three stations are aggregated
under one land use breakdown since land uses were not determined for each of
the stations.  Summation of the individual land use totals for the first 15
stations equal approximately the total area of the Watershed.  The remaining
stations are contained in the drainage areas of the first group.  The
drainage areas of the first 15 monitoring stations range in size from a
maximum of 6,657 ha to a minimum of 179 ha with an average of 2,713 ha,
allowing an initial segmentation of the Watershed into 13 sub-basins.
                                    III-5

-------
Table III-2.  Population in the Menomonee  River Watershed  by county and  civil  division
Population
Civil division* 1950 1960 1970 1975
Milwaukee County
Cities
Greenfield 	 4,753 6,892 8,752
Milwaukee 135,808 157,953 168,201 159,819
Wauwatosa 33,324 56,923 58,676 55,712
Vest Allis 23,572 39,556 40,815 38,753
Villages
Brown Deer** 	 1,572 	 	
Greendale 90 223 492 495
West Milwaukee 4,072 4,301 3,757 3,230

Towns
H Granville 2,418 	 	 	
[ij Greenfield 7,560 	 	 	
1 Wauwatosa 19,153 	 	 	
(T>
Sub total 225,997 265,281 278,833 266,761
Ozaukee County

City
Mequon 	 1,337 1,901 2,026
Town
Mequon 615 	 	 	

Sub total 615 1,337 1,901 2,026




Population
Civil division*

City
Milwaukee

Village
Germantown
Town
Germantown
Richfield

Sub total



Cities
Brookf ield
New Berlin
Villages
Butler
Elm Grove
Menomonee Falls
Towns
Brookf ield
Lisbon
Menomonee
New Berlin
Sub total
Total, Menomonee
River Watershed
1950 1960
Washington County

	 	


357 622

2,005 3,804
89 152

2,451 4,578

Waukesha County


13,354
	 1,697

1,047 2,274
4,994
2,469 15,469

4,491 130
4 7
2,450
482
10,943 37,925

240,006 309,121
1970


	


6,754

370
254

7,378




18,387
2,609

2,261
7,201
25,829

174
41

—
56,502

344,614
1975


2


8,317

375
383

9,077




18,934
2,657

2,230
7,692
27,233

173
41

	
58,960

336,824
 *The list of civil divisions in the Watershed and the  boundaries  of  these  civil  divisions have changed over  time because of  incorporations
  and annexations.
**The Village of Brown Deer incorporated from parts of  the Town  of Granville  between  1950-1960; after  I960, the City of Milwaukee attached
  the Village of Brown Deer.

-------
 Table  III-3.   Land use  description  and  area  and  percent of each  use  in the Menomonee River Watershed for 1975
                  Land use description
                                                                              3 digit
                                                                            SEWRPC code
                                                                                                 Area,  ha
                                     % of
                                   watershed
Residential
   Single  family  on lots  < 2  ha (non  farm)
   Single  family  assoc  ated with farm building
   Single  family  on lots  > 2  ha (non  farm)

   Two-family residential
   Multi-family high rise  (4 or more stories)
   Multi-family low rise  (1 to 40 stories)
   Mobile  homes
   Residential land under  development

Retail sales and service

   Local retail and service
   Regional retail and service

Industrial
   Wholesaling—wholesale structures (food and related, drug
   and medical, apparel, paper and apparel,  paper and paper
   products, furniture and household wares,  not large
   furniture stores or discount houses); auto salvage yard,
   junkyards, lumber yards, (not including retail structure
   on site).

   Storage—motor vehicle storage, fuel products (oil tank
   farms,   large coal storage areas), chemical and allied
   products (large salt storage areas), stockyards,  grain
   elevators, enclosed storage buildings.

   Manufacturing
   Extractive (quarries and mining)

Transportation

   Bus terminal
   Rail terminal
   Ship terminal
   Railroad right-of-way
   Railroad yards
  Air terminal and hangers
  Air field
  Land access and collector streets
   Standard arterial street and expressway
  Freeway
  Truck terminal
  Off-street parking

Communication and utilities

Governmental and institutional

  Local administrative,  safety,  assembly —city,  village,
  town; post offices (except  Milwaukee central),  military
  installations,  police stations, union halls,  churches,
  all administrative buildings under  city,  village,  or
  town authority (i.e.  town hall).
Ill
113
112

120
142
141
150
199
210
340
380
310
360
425
445
485
441
443
465
463
418
414
411
426
430

510
                                                                               612
  Local educational—all libraries (except Milwaukee,  Racine
  and Kenosha main),  day care centers,  nurseries,  kindergarten,
  elementary and junior high schools.

  Regional educational—senior high (and junior  high combination)
  schools, colleges (2 and 4 year),  technical schools  and
  specialty trade schools,  museums,  main libraries,  (Milwaukee).

  Local health—clinics
  Regional health—hospitals,  nursing  homes,  group quarters
  Local cemetaries—< 2 ha
  Regional cemeteries—> 2  ha
642
661
662
681
682
7,958.41
    3.09
   74.84

  471.49
    7.37
  401.18
   19.94
  710.88
                   548.76
                   371.04
  450.76
  161.15
                   122.75
                                                                                                  195.54
                                                                                                   305.97
                   186.90
    4.47
  318.32
   15.01
22.56
 0.01
 0.21

 1.34
 0.02
 1.14
 0.06
 2.02
                                      1.56
                                      0.23
 1.28
 0.46
1.67
20.78
0.00
320.76
159.59
6.75
143.31
2,333.80
680.93
658.60
82.97
790.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.45
0.02
0.41
6.62
1.93
1.87
0.24
2.24
                                      0.95
                                      0.35
 0.01
 0.90
 0.04
                                                         III-7

-------
Table III-3 (continued).
                 Land use description
                                                                              3  digit
                                                                            SEWRPC  code
                                                                                                 Area,  ha
                                                                                                                   %  of
                                                                                                                watershed
  Public cultural-special recreation areas—arboretum,  zoo,
  conservatory, planetarium, botanical garden, stadium,
  Mitchell domes.
                                                                                711
                                                                                                    52.06
  Private cultural special recreation areas (as above)
  Public land related recreation areas (see list)
  Private land related recreation areas (as above)

  Public water related recreation areas—beaches, boat
  launching sites, marinas, fishing piers.

  Private water related recreation areas

Agricultural^

  Row crops
  Grain crops
  Vegetable crops
  Hay
  Pasture
  Farm building (no associated animal husbandry)
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry-beef cattle
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—dairy cattle
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—horse
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—fowl  (chicken,
    turkey, duck)
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—fur (fox, mink)
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—hogs
  Farm building with associated animal husbandry—sheep
  Farm building wi^h associated animal husbandry—goats
  Orchard and nurseries
  Sod farm
  Berry fields
  Bee hives

Natura]^ areas^ind^ other open lands
                                                                              712
                                                                              731
                                                                              732

                                                                              781
    1.52
1,227.41
  285.39

    0.73
Lake, rivers, streams,  canals
General wetlands
Wetland on residential  lots with structures ( 1.2-2.0  ha)
Wetland on residential  lots with structures (> 2 ha)
Wetland on residential  lots committed to residential structures
Unused urban land
Unused rural land
Unused land on residential lots with structures ( 1.2-2.0  ha)
Unused land on residential lots with structures (> 2 ha)
Unused land on residential lots committed to res. structures
Retail sales and services under development
Industrial land under development
Transportation land under development
Communication and utility land under development
Government and institutional land under development
Recreational land under development
Land fill and dumps
General woodlands
Woodlands on residential lots with structures ( 1.2-2.0  ha)
Woodlands on residential lots with structures (> 2 ha)
Woodlands on residential lots committed to residential structures







Le

cen,
nlnk)











tures


•a)

es










uctures
811
812
813
814
815
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
820
841
842
849
950
910
913
914
915
921
922
923
924
925
299
399
499
599
699
799
930
940
943
944
945
3,763.82
988.75
1,041.87
1,824.80
2,439.70
149.59
4.17
27.55
1.64
1.28
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.00
194.66
34.85
1.02

185.20
1,068.21
0.21
0.00
1.03
1,037.16
588.17
64.43
3.08
0.00
6.02
194.48
0.00
0.00
9.96
0.00
119.80
1,747.33
20.47
6.42
0.00
0.00
3.48
0.81

0.00


0.02
                                                                                                                   10.67
                                                                                                                    2.80
                                                                                                                    2.95
                                                                                                                    5.17
                                                                                                                    6.92
                                                                                                                    0.42
                                                                                                                    0.01
                                                                                                                    0.08
                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                    0.00

                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                    0.55
                                                                                                                    0.10
                                                                                                                    0.00
                                                                                                                      0.53
                                                                                                                      3.03
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      2.94
                                                                                                                      1.67
                                                                                                                      0.18
                                                                                                                      0.01
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.02
                                                                                                                      0.55
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.01
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                                                                                      0.34
                                                                                                                      4.95
                                                                                                                      0.06
                                                                                                                      0.02
                                                                                                                      0.00
                                                            III-8

-------
Table III-4.  Listing of the land use codes consolidated
              into 14 land use categories
Land use category                       Land use code


         1                       310, 360

         2                       210, 340, 380 and 425 to 510

         3                       411, 414, 418

         4                       141, 142, 150

         5                       111, 120

         6                       112, 113, 871, 874, 875, 876,
                                 878 and 879

         7                       199, 299, 399, 699 and 799

         8                       811, 813

         9                       812, 814, 815, 611 to 682,
                                 711 to 782, 841, 842, 849 and
                                 921 to 925

        10                       820 and 940 to 945

        11                       910 to 915

        12                       872, 873 and 877

        13                       930

        14                       950
                              III-9

-------
 Table III-5,  Urban and rural land uses inventories  for  the Menomonee River Watershed in 1970 and 1975 as determined by
               the S.E. Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Area**, ha
Land use category Land use description 1970 1975
Urban Land Uses
1. Industrial Manufacturing and extractive 588 612
2. Commercial* Retail, wholesale, service, 2,517 2,864
7. of
1970

1.67
7.15
Watershed
1975

1.75
8.17
                              communication,  utilities,
                              transportation  and off street
                              parking excluding roads
 3.  Roads                    Freeways,  standard arterial streets            4,095         3,673             11.65         10.48
                              and  expressways and  local and
                              collector  streets
4.

5.

6.


7.



8.
9.


10.

11.
12.
13.

14.


High-density
residential
Medium-density
residential
Low-density
residential

Land under
development
Sub total - urban

Row crops
Pastures and
small grains*

Forested land
wood lots
Wetlands
Feedlots
Landfill and
dumps
Water areas
Sub total - rural
Total - watershed
Multi- family and mobile homes

Single family and two family
dwellings
Single family dwellings on lots
> 2 ha and all farm buildings
except feed lots
All types of land


Rural
Row crops and vegetables
Grain crops, hay, pasture, park
and recreational land, governmental
and institutional and unused land
( Woodlands, orchards and nurseries
(
. Swamps, marshes and wetlands
( Feedlots
, Landfills and dumps
,
( Lakes, rivers, streams and canals


332

7,486

139


1,023

16,180
Land Uses
5,491
10,533


1,677

997
39
101

145
18,983
35,163
428

3,430

230


921

17,158

4,806
9,705


1,969

1,069
32
120

185
17,886
35,044
0.

21.

0


2 ,

46

15.
29


4.

2.
0.
0.

0.
53.
100".
.94

.29

.40


.91

.01

.62
.95


77

84
11
29

41
99
.00
1.

24.

0.


2,

48.

13.
27.


5.

3,
0.
0.

0,
51
100
.22

06

.66


.63

.97

71
.69


.62

.05
09
34

.53
.03
.00
 *In the Menomonee  River Watershed most governmental and institutional buildings  are  associated  with  large  open  parklands and
  are included  in Category  9.   In other watersheds, where these buildings are associated  with  a  commercial  district,  they are
  better included in  Category  2,
**The 1975  data are more accurate because hectare-sized cells were summed;  1970 data  were based on 0.65  km2  cells.
                                                          111-10

-------
                                             LEGEND
N
                                             Low density residential
                                             (0.5 to 5.4 dwelling
                                             units per net residential
                                             ha)

                                             Medium density residential
                                             (5.5 to 17.0 dwelling
                                             units per net residential
                                             ha)

                                             High density residential
                                             (17.1 to 44.2 dwelling
                                             units per net residential
                                             ha)

                                          •  Major retail and service
                                             center

                                          •  Major industrial center

                                          •  Major airport

                                          A  Major public outdoor
                                             recreation center

                                         |>^}  Primary environmental
                                             corridor preservation
                                             through public
                                             acquisition

                                         j  j  Agricultural and unused
                                             lands
    Fig.  III-2.   Generalized land use in the Menomonee River
                 Watershed,  1975.
                                 III-ll

-------
                                                           Mixed land use stations

                                                           Predominantly single
                                                           land use stations

                                                            Air temperature and
                                                            precipitation stations
673001
                                                                         413014
                                                                           413013
                                                                             413012
             Km
      Fig. III-3.  Station locations within  the Menomonee River Watershed.
                                       111-12

-------
Table III-6.   Menomonee River Watershed monitoring stations* with area  for  each land use category:   1975
STORET
number
413012
413013

413014
413004

413009
413005
413006

413007

683001
413008

683002

673001

463001
413010
413011
413625

683090

413614

413615

683089

413616

Location of
g
Harbor at Hwy. 32 bridge }
Menomonee River (MR) at '
2nd St. bridge J
MR at N. 13th St. bridge )
MR above 27th St. at Falk
Corporation
MR at Hawley Road
MR at 70th St. bridge
Honey Creek 140 m above
confluence with MR
Underwood Creek above
Hwy. 45 off North Ave.
MR at 124th St. (Hwy. M)
Little MR at Appleton
Ave. (Hwy. 175)
MR at Pilgrim Road
(Hwy. YY)
MR at River Lane Road
(Hwy. F)
Donges Bay Road, Mequon
St.
Noyes Creek at 91st St.

St. and Greenfield Ave.
Village of Elm Grove, ditch
at Underwood Pkwy.
Timmerman Airport, manhole
«6
Stadium interchange, 1-94,
manhole //120
Brookfield Square Shopping
Center
Ferrick St.
Allis-Chalmers Corp.,
City of West Allis
Land use category,** ha
1


60


133

0.04
105
24

76

106
26

27

44

0
Q
10
o

0

0

0

0
25
38

234 56


272 227 41 144 0


404 397 30 538 1

11 52 3 94 0
671 668 94 1,117 0.5
237 541 91 1,262 0 4

446 567 53 1,967 7

348 500 11 1,690 54
176 160 46 316 19

84 258 12 633 48

101 118 25 233 66

16 40 1 149 33
8 40 1 118 0
83 109 21 167 1
6 25 2 0 127

3 17 0 0 131

134 5 0 01

9 26 0 11 0

37 3 0 50
54 9 0 80
10 0.7 0 00

7 8


7 0


4 0

0.2 0
27 11
49 15

145 29

302 938
120 389

130 864

80 1,621

34 938
3 0
15 1
6 0

6 0

0 0

0.1 0

0 0
0 0
0 0

9


95


293

21
1,083
524

1,297

2,157
891

1,250

1,542

648
9
126
56

5

0

18

16
14
0

10 11 12


000


000

000
24 0 0
14 9 0

193 138 0

331 164 3
200 99 0.4

368 331 3

626 281 14

210 49 12
000
2 0.4 0
200

400

000

000

000
000
000

13


0


14

0
2
13

40

22
13

1

0

0
0
15
0

0

0

0

0
0
0

14


28


15

0
34
4

12

31
7

16

22

14
0
2
0

0

0

0

0
0
0

Total


874


1,829

181
3,836
2,783

4,970

6,657
2,462

4,025

4,773

2,144
179
552
224

166

140

64

61
110
49

 *The harbor stations, numbers 413012, 413013 and 413014 are grab  sampling stations.   The  remaining stations are automatic  sampling and continuous
  flow monitoring except station number 413004 which is automatic  sampling only.
**Land use  categories are defined in Table III-5.
                                                                      111-13

-------
      For purposes of mainstem monitoring,  the Watershed was divided  into
 7  sub-basins  for the following reasons:

      1.  The  harbor sites  (413012, 413013  and 413014) were only grab
         sampling stations.

      2.  The  Hawley Road site (413009) received drainage from a combined
         sewer system.

      3.  The  station at Falk Corporation (413004), although included in
         the  succeeding discussion, was affected by seiche, thus monitored
         data were inaccurate.  For this reason, the 70th Street station
         (413005) was used to integrate the non-point pollutional land
         arising from the entire Watershed.

      4.  Although stations 463001, 413011 and 413010 were on the mainstem
         or tributary stream, they monitor essentially single land uses,
         hence they are included with the other predominantly single land
         use  sites—413625, 683090, 413614, 413615, 683089, 413034 and
         413616—which are discussed later.
              Mainstem and tributary stream monitoring stations
     The Menomonee River Watershed was divided into eight tributary areas
by utilizing eight automatic monitoring stations on the mainstem of the
Menomonee River and major tributary streams (Fig. III-3).  Mainstem stations
were assigned STORET numbers 673001, 683002, 683001, 413005 and 413004 and
tributary streams were 413009, 413007 and 413006.  During 1975 the average
flow for stations 413008, 413007 and 413006 was 0.48, 0.40 and 0.23 m3/sec,
respectively, while the mainstem station 413005 was 3.03 m3/sec.  As stations
413004 and 413005 were situated in the lower portion of the Watershed the
loading values obtained from these monitoring sites represented loadings
from the entire Watershed.  Tributary areas ranged in size from 2,803 to
34,398 ha and encompassed a variety of land uses, thus providing integrated
pollutant loading values.  The tributary areas for the eight monitoring
stations were selected so that comparisons could be made with small homo-
geneous tributary areas.

     Four sewage treatment  plants (STP) with average discharge of ~ 3800
m3/day are located upstream from station 673001 (1 STP), 683001 (3 STP) and
413005 (4 STP).  Results of the 1975 land use inventory are summarized in
the form of 14 aggregated land uses for the eight tributary areas (Table
III-6).  It is important to note that roads were not included in any land
use categories except category 3.  All roads except category 3 were distrib-
uted proportionally among the land use categories.  Area directly tributary
to a station was defined by the natural watershed boundaries and the highest
contour next to the upstream station.  For example, station 413005 inte-
grates 29,506 ha of the Watershed but only 3,836 ha lie within the immediate
subwatershed of that station.
                                    I11-14

-------
     Examination of land uses for the Watershed show the historical urban
development from the harbor section to upstream portions of the Watershed.
Most of the commercial and industrial development occurs in the lower one-
third of the Watershed and even though medium and high density residential
areas are to be found throughout the Watershed, their accumulation id
much more pronounced in the lower half (Table III-6).   Agricultural land
uses are confined almost entirely to the upper portion of the Watershed.
It is hoped that variations in pollutant loading at the mainstem stations
can be accounted for on the basis of differences in land use distribution.

     Based on the 1975 land use inventory SEWRPC was able to determine the
extent of imperviousness for each area tributary to a mainstem station
(Table III-7).  As expected from the land use distribution degree of
imperviousness was much more pronounced in the lower half of the Watershed.
By a summation from individual land use category data it was possible to
determine that portion of the impervious area which was directly connected
to a channel  (Table III-7).  It should be noted that the extent of imper-
vious area directly connected to a channel was closely related to the water
load (flow) for each tributary area.

     Based on verbal communication with City employees and with staff members
of SEWRPC, it was determined that urban areas in the Watershed usually were
well maintained.  Building exteriors are generally in good condition and
laws are well maintained in residential areas.  The Watershed does not
contain large areas of slums based on buildings being in a rundown condition.
Debris tended to be more prevalent around industrial and manufacturing sites
than in medium and low density residential areas.  Roadways are paved and
generally in good repair.  Street salting was performed as often as thirty
to fifty times during the winter of 1975-1976.

     The practice of street sweeping appears to be more prevalent in areas of
high population density.  Highest sweeping frequency was found in the Cities
of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa and West Allis.  Rural roadways in municipalities in
the upper portion of the Watershed frequently were not included in the
sweeping program.  By determination of curb km (street km x 2) in each
municipality the relative frequency of street sweeping was estimated (Table
III-7), e.g., streets were swept 0 to 2 times per year in areas tributary to
stations 673001, 683001, 683002 and 413007 while in areas tributary to
stations 413006 and 413008 most streets were swept on a weekly basis.   The
central business districts had relatively high sweeping frequencies.  The
large municipalities had some method of leaf collection in the fall to
supplement their street sweeping activities.


              Predominantly single land use monitoring stations
     Ten monitoring stations were established in the Watershed to assess storm
water pollution from drainage areas which are predominantly in one land use.
Table III-8 provides information on the 10 drainage areas and some of this
information is not contained in the Land DMS.  The area of impervious surfaces
and the percent of impervious area connected directly to a channel are
                                     111-15

-------
              Table III-7.  Characteristics and some management practices in the mainstem monitoring  drainage  areas
H
H
 I
or<

Category
Area adjacent to
monitoring station,
ha
Total imperviousness:
Area, ha
%
Connected imperviousness:
Area, ha
7.
Curb length,* km
Municipalities adjacent
to monitoring station
















413004 413005 413006


1,829 3,836 2,783

1,196 1,805 1,257
65 47 45

833 1,046 778
46 27 28
n.a. 353 322
Milwaukee Butler West Allis
Milwaukee Wauwatosa
Brookfield Milwaukee
Wauwatosa Greenfield

Sweeping operations: Germantown -j
Mequon /
Elm Grove I
New Berlin J
Greenfield -

Menomonee
Falls
Butler

Milwaukee -\
Wauwatosa 1
West Allis J
Brookfield -

STORET number
413007 413008 683001


4,970 2,462 6,657

1,412 378 1,096
28 15 16

348 144 222
763
424 190 289

683002 673001


4,025 4,773

485 255
12 5

126 41
3 1
141 84
Brookfield Mequon Menomonee Falls Germantown Germantown
Elm Grove Milwaukee Butler Menomonee Falls
West Allis Brookfield
Wauwatosa Milwaukee
New Berlin

No sweeping in central business, residential,
areas; no leaf pickup in fall.

No sweeping in central business, residential,
areas; leaf pickup in fall.
Weekly sweeping in central business district;
residential, commercial or industrial areas;
Semi-annual sweeping in central, residential,
areas; leaf pickup in fall.
Weekly sweeping in central business district;
residential, commercial or industrial areas;




commercial or industrial

commercial or industrial

semi-annual sweeping in
leaf pickup in fall.
commercial or industrial

biweekly sweeping in
leaf pickup in fall.
Annual sweeping in central, residential, commercial or industrial areas;
no leaf pickup in fall.

              *Values for curb length are rough estimates and do not include highways and freeways.
              n.a.  Not available.

-------
                       Table III-H.   Characteristics of  the predominantly  single  land use drainage areas
M
M
M
 I
STORE! number
Category
Area, ha
I mperviousness , %:
Total
Connected
Weighted average
slope, %
Predominant soil
te itural class
Drainage system
Roof drain
connection
Curh length, km*
Curb
Street pavement
Pavement
condi t ion
Street sweeping**
Catch basin
cleaning
De i c in g :
Compound
Amount, metric
ton
Snow removal
Traffic,++
vehicle/day
113616
47
89.8
89.8
1.0
n.a.
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
2.4
None
Asphalt
Poor
Monthly
Semi-
annual ly
NaCl
45
Plowed
to side
200
413615
59
44.6
43.2
5.0
n. a.
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
21.4(5.8)
Concrete
Asphalt
Excellent
Monthly
No catch
basins
CaClp/Nacl
31
Plowed
to curb
150,000
683089
54
50.4
44.9
2.8
Silt loam
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
2. 7(0.6)
Concrete
Asphalt
Fair
None
No catch
basins
n. a.
n.a.
Plowed
to side
11,500
413011
543
34.9
28.0
4.9
Silt loam
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
104. 1
Concrete
Concrete
Excellent
Biweekly
No catch
basins
n.a.
n. a.
Plowed
to curb
n. a.
413010
202
53.5
32.7
3. 3
n.a.
Storm
sewered
To lawns

49.7
Concrete
Asphalt
Good
Biweekly
Annual ly
NaCl
3,700
Plowed
to curb
1,800
413034
106
73.8
32.1
3.5
Silt loam
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
10.3(2.9)
Concrete
Asphalt
Good
Biweekly
Annually
NaCl
4,500
Plowed
to curb
25,000
413614
135
18.0
6.6
3.0
Silt loam
Storm
sewered
To storm
sewer
14.6
None
Asphalt
Good
Annually
Annually
None
None
P lowed
to side
370
413625
223
22.5
0.3
3.3
Silt loam
Natural
ditches
To lawns

39.3
None
Asphalt
Good
None
No catch
basins
NaCl
1,180
Plowed
to side
2,500
463001
2,040
4.0
1.0
3.3
Silt loam
Natural
ditches
To lawns

265.4
None
Asphalt
Fair
None
No catch
basins
NaCl
1,390
Plowed
to side
n .a.
683090
161
24.3
0.0
4.0
Silt loam
Natural
ditches
To lawns

29.6
None
Asphalt
Good
None
No catch
basins
NaCl
18
P lowed
to side
1,000
                        n.a.  Not  available.
                        *The  number  in parenthesis  is the length (total lane km) of non-curbed  roadway  in the drainage area.
                        **Street  sweeping  is performed during the period of April to October.
                        +Salt application  values are estimates from best available data.
                       -H-Traffic  counts are for workdays.

-------
examples of information not contained in the Land DMS.   These  values  for
1975 were determined using a planimeter on air photographs  on  which the
drainage areas were carefully outlined.   The drainage area  boundaries were
determined from a combination of sources:   USGS topographic maps,  0.6 m
contour topographic maps and storm sewer plans.   The storm  sewer plans were
required, since in several areas the storm sewers cut across grade.   The
percent impervious area is determined by hand planimetering all hard
surfaces in the drainage area,  i.e., roofs,  sidewalks,  driveways,  parking
lots and roads.  The percent connected impervious area is that portion of the
total area that is directly connected to a storm sewer system, i.e.,  no
intervening natural drainage surfaces exist.   Table III-A-1 is a complete
listing of all land uses in each drainage area for 1975 and Figs.  III-A-1
to III-A-10 provide a pictorial description of the 10 drainage areas.  The
pictorial descriptions and physical data provide a clear description  of the
characteristics of each monitored drainage area.   It should be noted  that
the drainage areas in Table III-8 and Table III-A-1 are different  because
the drainage areas in the latter table were determined by computer summation
of hectare-sized cells in the Land DMS which only approximate  the  true
configuration of a drainage area.
                                   Climate
                         General climatic conditions
     The mid-continental location* of the Watershed,  far removed from the
moderating effect of the oceans,  gives the Watershed  a typical continental-
type climate characterized primarily by a continuous  progression of markedly
different seasons and a wide range of annual temperatures.   Low winter
temperatures are intensified by prevailing frigid northwesterly winds, while
summer high temperatures are reinforced by the warm southwesterly winds
common during that season.

     The Watershed is positioned astride cyclonic storm tracks along which
low pressure centers move from the west and southwest.  The Watershed also
lies in the path of high pressure centers moving in a generally southeasterly
direction.  Because the Watershed is located at the confluence of major
migratory air masses it is affected by a continuously changing pattern of
different air masses.  Thus, frequent weather changes—particularly in spring
and winter when distinct changes  normally occur every three or five days—
are superimposed on the wide annual range which is characteristic of the
area.  These temporal weather changes consist of marked variations in
temperatures, type and amount of  precipitation, relative humidity, wind
speed and direction and cloud cover.
    *Unless otherwise indicated, climatic, physiographic and geologic
descriptions and data presented herein are based on information extracted
from SEWRPC (2").

                                    111-18

-------
     In  addition  to  these  distinct temporal variations in weather, the
Watershed—in  spite of  its relatively small size—exhibits spatial variations
in weather due primarily  to  its proximity to Lake Michigan, particularly
during  the spring,  summer, and fall seasons when the temperature differential
between the  Lake water  and the land air masses tends to be the greatest.
During  these periods, the presence of the Lake tends to moderate the climate
of the  eastern border of  the Watershed.  It is common, for example, for
midday  summer  temperatures in shoreline areas to abruptly drop to a tempera-
ture level   12°C lower  than  inland areas because of cooling lake breezes
generated by air rising from the warmer land surfaces.  This Lake Michigan
temperature  influence is, however, generally limited to that portion of the
Watershed lying  within  a  few kilometers of the shoreline.
                                Temperature
    Data for three air temperature observation stations in the Watershed
 are presented in Table III-9, and their locations are shown in Fig. III-3.
 The three stations—Germantown (A), Mount Mary College (B) and West Allis
 (C)—are located along a generally north-south line traversing the length
 of the Watershed.  Coincident periods of record were not used to prepare
 Table III-9 because of the widely varying periods of record available, some
 of which are very short, and because of the absence of readily available
 data summaries.  Although non-coincident periods of records were used, the
 monthly and annual summary data presented in this Section are judged to be
 sufficiently accurate to portray the spatial and temporal variations in
 Watershed temperature.  These data indicate the temporal variations and in
 some instances, the spatial variations in temperature and the temperature
 ranges which may be expected to occur in the Watershed.   The temperature
 data also illustrate how Watershed air temperatures lag approximately one
 month behind summer and winter solstices during the annual cycle, with the
 result that July is the warmest month in the Watershed and January the cold-
 est.

    Summer air temperatures throughout the Watershed, as reflected by
 monthly means at the stations for July and August,  are in the 20.8°C to
 23.1°C  range.   Average daily maximum temperatures  within the Watershed
 for these two summer months are in the 27.1°C to 28.8°C range, whereas
 average daily minimum temperatures vary from 13.2°C to 17.0°C.  With
 respect to minimum daily temperatures, the meteorological station network
 is not sufficient to reflect all the effects of  topography.   During night-
 time hours,  cold air,  because of its greater density, flows into low-lying
 areas.  Because of this phenomenon, the average daily minimum temperatures
 in these topographically low areas, particularly during  the summer months,
will be less than those recorded by the meterological stations.   Winter
 temperatures for the Watershed as measured by monthly means for January
 and February are in the range of -7.2°C to -4.1°C.   Average daily maximum
 temperatures within the Watershed for these two winter months vary from
 -3.3°C to -0.2°C, whereas average daily minimum temperatures  are in the
-13.3°C to -9.4°C range.


                                   111-19

-------
               Table III-9.    Air temperature (°C)  characteristics  at  selected locations in the Menomonee River
                              Watershed
I
M
O





Mount Mary College
(1948-1975)
Hpnth
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year
Average
daily
maximum*
-2.0
-0.1
4.8
13.6
20.3
25.8
28.6
27.8
23.5
17.6
8.3
0.8
14. 1
Average
daily
minimum*
-11.1
-9.1
-4.4
2.0
7.3
13.0
16.1
15.5
11.3
5.9
0.8
7.5
3.2
Mean**
-6.4
-4.5
0.3
7.9
13.9
19.5
22.5
21.8
17.5
11.9
3.9
-3.2
8.7
Average
daily
maximum*
-2.2
0.1
4.9
13.1
19.8
26.2
28.6
27. 6
22.7
16.6
7.8
0.7
13.8
Locat ion


West Allis
(1951-1976)
Average
daily
minimum*
-10.7
-8.2
-3.2
3.2
8.5
14.4
17.4
17.2
12.5
6.9
-0.3
-6.8
4.3
Mean**
-6.4
-4.0
0.8
8.2
14.1
20.3
23.0
22.4
17.6
11.8
3.8
-3.1
9.1
Average
daily
maximum*
-2.5
-0.4
5.0
13.2
19.6
25.3
27.9
27.4
22.7
16.9
7.6
0.1
13.6


Germantown
(1944-1976)
Average
daily
minimum*
-12.5
-10.5
-5.0
1.2
6.2
11.9
14.5
14.1
9.6
4.6
-2.1
-9.1
1.9
Mean**
-7.5
-5.5
0.0
7.2
12.9
18.6
21.2
20.7
16.2
10.8
2.7
-4.5
7.7
                *The monthly average daily  maximum temperature  and  the monthly  average  daily minimum temperature are
                 obtained by using daily measurements  to  compile  an average  for each month in  the indicated period of
                 record;  the results are then averaged for  all  months in  the period  of  record.
               **The mean monthly temperature is  the average  of the average  daily  maximum temperature and daily
                 minimum temperature for each month.

-------
    Air temperature data for the three Watershed stations as prescribed in
Table III-9 strongly suggest the existence of an urban heat effect (3,4).
Large urban complexes have been observed to exhibit higher air temperatures
than surrounding rural areas.  This temperature differential is greatest
during the evening hours of clear days and is partly attributable to the
numerous heat sources in an urban environment.  Another factor is the more
gradual loss of this heat to the atmosphere due to the dense pattern of the
urban structures emitting the heat radiating toward each other rather than
into the open atmosphere as in rural areas, and due to the presence of
atmospheric contaminants which form a barrier to night time radiation from
the earth to the atmosphere.

    For all months of the year, average daily minimum temperatures for the
West Allis station, which is located in a highly urbanized areas, are
-16.5°C to -14.8°C higher than average daily minimum temperatures at
Germantown, which is located in a rural area.  Average daily minimum
temperatures recorded at the Mount Mary College observation station,
which is located within an urban area containing considerable open space,
lie between those observed at West Allis and Germantown.  Although Germantown
temperatures would be expected to be slightly lower than West Allis tempera-
tures because of the latitudinal effect—the Germantown station is located
about 24 km north of the West Allis station—the temperature differential
is most pronounced for average minimum daily temperatures, and is too large
to be entirely attributable to differences in latitude or topography.

    In summary, then, the air temperature data strongly suggest the existence
of an urban heat effect at several locations in the Watershed.  One conse-
quence of this effect is an increase in precipitation and cloudiness that
is convectively produced as a result of air rising from the warmer urban
areas.
                               Precipitation
    Precipitation in the Watershed takes the form of rain, sleet, hail and
 snow and ranges from gentle showers of trace quantities to destructive
 thunderstorms, as well as major rainfall-snowmelt events which cause
 property and crop damage, inundation of poorly-drained areas and stream
 flooding.  Existing sewerage system problems such as overflows from the
 27.7 km* (area tributary to Watershed) combined sewer service area of the
 City of Milwaukee are the direct result of even small precipitation events.
 Heavy rainfall events may also require sewage treatment plants to bypass
 large volumes of partially treated or untreated sewage—in excess of the
 hydraulic capacity of the plants—into the storm water sewerage system.
 Such bypassing is necessary because of the excessive quantities of rain,
 snowmelt and groundwater flowing into the sanitary sewers via manholes,
 building sewers, building downspouts and foundation drain connections and
 by  infiltration through faulty sewer pipe joints, manhole structures and
 cracked pipes.

    Monthly average total precipitation and snowfall observations with

                                   IH-21

-------
totals for three Watershed stations are presented in Table 111-10.   The
average annual total precipitation in the Watershed,  based on  a numerical
average of data for the three stations is 75.77 cm,  expressed  as water
equivalent where 25 cm of measured snowfall is  equivalent  to 2.5 cm of
water, while the average annual snow and sleet  measured as snow and sleet
is 106.7 cm.

    The precipitation data presented in Table 111-10 suggests  the existence
of an urban effect in the precipitation amounts.   The average  total precip-
itation for the Mount Mary College and West Allis stations is  approximately
6 cm greater than the Germantown station.  Since  rainfall-snowmelt  events
are the driving force in diffuse source pollution (non-point pollution) ,
additional precipitation increases the washoff  of pollutants from the urban
environment.

     It should be noted that the precipitation  data  presented  in Table III-
10 are again made up of non-coincident periods  of record.   Although non-
coincident periods of record were used, the monthly  and annual summary data
presented in the section are judged to be sufficiently accurate to portray
the spatial and temporal variations in Watershed precipitation.


                        Physiography and Topography


    The 355 km  Menomonee River Watershed is a  narrow,  irregularly  shaped
drainage basin, with its major axis oriented approximately north and south
(Fig. III-l).  Its length—measured between the northernmost and southern-
most points—is approximately 37 km, and its maximum width, which occurs
in the lower third of the Watershed along a line extending from the
Milwaukee Harbor directly west to the Watershed divide, is 19  km.  The
middle portion of the Watershed is about 8 km wide,  while  the  upper
headwater area is approximately 14 km in width.

    Watershed physiographic features, or surficial land forms, have been
determined largely by the underlying bedrock and the overlying glacial
deposits of the Watershed.  There is evidence of four major stages  of
glaciation in southeastern Wisconsin.  The last and  most influential in
terms of present physiography and topography was the Wisconsin stage, which
is believed to have ended  about 11,000 years ago.

    The Niagara cuesta on which the Watershed lies is a gently eastward
sloping bedrock surface.  The topography in this section is asymmetrical
with the eastern border of the Watershed being  generally lower—about
46 to 92 m—in elevation than the western border. Glacial deposits overlying
the bedrock formations form the irregular surface topography of the Watershed,
characterized by rounded hills or groups of hills, ridges, broad undulating
plains, and poorly drained wetlands.

    Interlobate deposits known as the Kettle Moraine, left between the
Green Bay and Lake Michigan lobes, or tongues,  of the continental glacier
which moved in a generally southerly direction from its point  of origin


                                      111-22

-------
Table III-10.  Precipitation (cm) characteristics at selected locations in the Menomonee River Watershed
Location
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
September
October
November
December
Year
Mount Mary
Average total
precipitation
(1946-1976)
3.91
3.23
5.97
8.31
7.37
9.14
9.25
7.67
7.21
5.82
5.08
4.78
77.74
College
Average snow
and sleet
(1961-1976)
23.9
24.4
20.8
5.8
Trace
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trace
Trace
2.5
24.4
101.8
West
Average total
precipitation
(1951-1976)
3.51
2.92
5.49
8.33
7.24
9.47
8.56
7.98
7.80
6.40
5.59
4.62
77.91
Allis
Average snow
and sleet
(1961-1974)
23.1
21. 8
20.3
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.,0
0.0
Trace
1.8
22.1
95.8
Germantown
Average total
precipitation
(1945-1976)
2.87
2.34
4.55
7.04
7.32
8.76
8.38
8.10
7.98
5.46
5.11
3.81
71.72
Average snow
and sleet
(1961-1976)
25.9
23.9
29.7
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trace
0.3
5.6
30.7
122.7

-------
in what is now Canada, lie to the west of the Menomonee River Watershed.
The northwest portion of the Watershed lies closest to the Kettle Moraine,
and contains rolling ground moraine similar to,  but more subdued than,  the
kettle and kame topography of the Kettle Moraine.   This area of rolling
ground moraine gives the Watershed its highest elevations and areas of
greatest local relief.

    Surface elevations within the Watershed range  from a high of approxi-
mately 342 m above sea level in Washington County, to approximately 177 m
above sea level in the Menomonee River industrial  valley (Milwaukee), a
maximum relief of 165 m.  The areas of greatest  local relief are located
in the northwest portion of the Watershed in Washington County.

    Most of the Watershed is covered by gently sloping ground moraine—
heterogeneous material deposited beneath the ice—and moraines consisting
of material deposited at the forward margins of the ice sheet, and outwash
plains formed by the action of flowing glacial meltwater.  Glacial land
forms are of economic significance because some are prime sources of sand
and gravel needed for highway and other construction purposes.  Because of
their beauty and desirability for homesites, glacial land forms also serve
as effective indicators of those rural areas of  the Watershed likely to
experience concentrated residential development.  An example of such an
area is the attractive rolling ground moraine area in the northwest portion
of the Watershed, which provides an excellent view of the Kettle Moraine
to the west.

    Topography is important to Watershed planning since it is one of the
important factors determining the hydrologic response of a Watershed to
rainfall and rainfall-snowmelt events, and since topographic considerations
enter into the selection of sites and routes for public utilities and
facilities such as sewerage and water supply systems and highways.  Some
type of large scale mapping is available for about 350 km2, or about 98
percent, of the total Watershed area.  Of that total, 145 km2, representing
about 42 percent of the Watershed, is covered by large scale topographic
mapping prepared using SEWRPC recommended procedures.  For the remaining
area, other large scale topographic mapping and sanitary and storm sewer
maps either with or without street grade elevations are available.  More
detailed mapping information is available from SEWRPC (1).  The above  mapping,
together with scale aerial photographs available for the entire Watershed,
were used extensively during the Watershed.

     As already noted, a major subcontinental divide that separates
 Mississippi River basin drainage from Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin
 drainage forms much of the western boundary of  the Menomonee River Watershed.
 In addition to the physical significance of the subcontinental divide—it
 established the overall easterly direction of Menomonee River Watershed
 surface drainage—the subcontinental divide also  carries with it certain
 legal constraints on the diversion of water across the divide.  Also of
 significance are the water quality requirements imposed on the Watershed
 as a result of its being tributary to Lake Michigan.

     The Fox River and Rock River Watersheds lie west of the Menomonee  River

                                   111-24

-------
Watershed and of the subcontinental divide.   On the north and east, the
Menomonee River Watershed adjoins the large Milwaukee River Watershed,
while the Kinnickinnic River, Oak Creek, and Root River Watersheds lie to
the south of the Menomonee River Watershed.   Comprehensive watershed plans
have been completed and adopted by the SEWRPC for three of the six
watersheds contiguous to the Menomonee River Watershed—the Root River,
Fox River, and Milwaukee River Watersheds—while in December 1974 the
SEWRPC published a prospectus for one of the remaining three contiguous
watersheds—the Kinnickinnic River Watershed.

    Surface drainage within the Watershed is very diverse with respect to
channel shape and slope, the degree of stream sinuosity, and floodland
shape and width.   The heterogeneous character of the surface drainage
system is partly due to the natural effects of recent glaciation superimpos-
ed on the bedrock geology, and partly due to the extensive channel modifica-
tions evident in the lower Watershed.
                                  Geology
    The geology of the Menomonee River Watershed is a complex system of
various layers and ages of rock formations.  The type and extent of the
various bedrock formations underlying the Watershed were determined
primarily by the environments in which the sediments forming the various
rock layers were deposited.  The surface of this varied system of rock
layers was, moreover, deeply eroded prior to being buried by a blanket of
glacial deposits consisting of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay, gravel, and
boulders.  The bedrock formations underlying the Menomonee River
Watershed consist of, in ascending order, predominantly crystalline rocks of
the Precambrian Era, Cambrian through Devonian Period sedimentary rocks of
the Paleozoic Era, and unconsolidated surficial deposits.  Only the glacial
deposits and the youngest sedimentary rocks are exposed in the Watershed.
The subsurface stratigraphy of the Menomonee River Watershed is summarized
in Table III-ll.

    Precambrian crystalline rocks thousands of meters thick formed  the base-
ment on which younger rocks were deposited.  Little is known of their
origin, but in wells within or near the Watershed that reach the
Precambrian basement, the rock types include quartzite and granite.  The
Precambrian rocks were extensively eroded to an uneven surface before the
overlying sedimentary formations were deposited.  Layered sedimentary rocks
overlying the Precambrian rocks consist primarily of sandstone, shale, and
dolomite.  These rocks were deposited during the Cambrian, Ordovician,
Silurian, and Devonian geologic time periods, in seas that covered much of
the present North American continent.

    The Cambrian rocks in the Watershed are primarily sandstone, but contain
some siltstone, dolomite, and shale.  The most dominant Cambrian rock units
are the two lowermost units, the Mount Simon sandstone which was deposited
on the Precambrian surface, and the Eau Claire sandstone.  The two units
are present throughout the Watershed.  The other three Cambrian rock units

                                   111-25

-------
           Table TIT-11.   Stratigraphy of the Menomonee River Watershed
           Geologic Age
                                St ratigraphic unit
                                                            Thickness  range,  m
                                                                                              Lithology
                                                                                                                                   Areal extent
ON
           Hoiocene
           Pleistocene
           Silurian
           Ordovician
           Cambrian
Alluvium and marsh deposits


Glacial deposits


Dolomite, undifferentiated



Dolomit e, un di f ferent iat ed
                            Maquoketa Shale,
                              undifferent iated

                            Galena Dolomite,
                              Decorah Formation and
                              Platteville Formation,
                              undifferentiated

                            St.  Peter Sandstone
                            Trempealeau Formation
                            Franconia Sandstone
                            Galesville Sandstone
                            Eau Claire Sandstone
                            Mount S imon Sandstone
                                                                  0-11
                                                                 14-136
                                                                 31-63
                                     66-101
                                                                 24-78
                                                                  0-5
           Precambrian      Undifferentiated
                                                                  0-41
                                                                 35-104
                                                                 78-519+(?)
                                 (Thousands of
                                    meters)
Peat,  clay, silt, sand and gravel.


Clay,  silt, sand and gravel.


Dolomite, thick-bedded, gray.
Dolomite, dense, thick-bedded,
light gray; some beds cherty;
some coral reefs.

Shale, dolomitic, gray, with
interbedded dolomite.

Dolomite, light gray to tan.
Sandy dolomite or dolomit ic
sandstone at base.
Sandstone, medium to fine
grained, dolomitic, white to
light gray.

Sandstone, very fine to medium
grained.  Dolomite light gray,
interbedded with siltstone in
lower part.

Sandstone, very fine to medium
grained, glauconitic.

Sandstone, fine to medium
grained, light gray.

Sandstone, very fine to medium
grained.  Dolomite and shale.

Sandstone, fine to coarse
grained, white or iight gray.
Some interbedded thin shale.

Crystalline rocks including
granite and quartzite.
Occurs only locally in stream,
valleys and marshes.

Underlies entire watershed
except on rock outcrops.

Recognized only in three wells
in the southeastern part of
the watershed.

Underlies entire watershed.
                                                                                                                          Underlies entire watershed.
                                                                                              Underlies entire watershed.
                                                                                              Underlies entire watershed.
                                                                                                                          These units are recognized
                                                                                                                          only in one well in the
                                                                                                                          southwest part of the watershed.
                                                                                              Recognized only in two wells,
                                                                                              in southern part of watershed.
                                                                                                                          These units underlie entire
                                                                                                                          watershed.
                                                                                                                          Underlies entire watershed.

-------
in the Watershed—the Galesville sandstone, Franconia sandstone,  and
Trempealeau formation—are younger than the Mount Simon and Eau Claire
sandstones, and have been found only locally in the southern portion of
the Basin,  Most of the Galesville and Franconia sandstones and the
Trempealeau formation were probably eroded and thereby removed from the
Watershed before deposition of the Ordovician rock units.   Cambrian rocks
are thickest in the Milwaukee County area, where the combined thickness
of the Mount Simon and Eau Claire sandstones is probably in excess of
366 m.  Northward into the headwater areas of the Watershed, the thickness
of the Cambrian rocks is significantly reduced to about 183 m.

      The Ordovician rocks in the Watershed consist of sandstone, dolomite,
and shale.  The St. Peter sandstone, which was deposited on an erosion
surface cut into the underlying Cambrian formations, has a relatively
uniform thickness of about 61 m over much of the Watershed except for
the northern portions, where it appears to  thin to less than 46 m.  The
Platteville formation, Decorah formation, and Galena dolomite were
deposited in succession on top of the St. Peter sandstone, but are not
differentiated in the Watershed.  The combined thickness of these dolomitic
units is generally between 61 and 92 m.  Above these is the Maquoketa
shale, which has a thickness of about 61 m throughout the Watershed.

      The Silurian rocks consisting of undifferentiated dolomite strata
overlie the Maquoketa shale.  They form the bedrock beneath the glacial
deposits in essentially all of the Watershed.  The outcrops of Silurian
dolomite appeared and were quarried at several localities within the
Watershed.  Relative to most of the other rock units found in the Watershed,
the thickness of the Silurian dolomite exhibits marked spatial variations.
Thickness ranges from a minimum of about 31 to 46 m in the southeastern
portion of the Watershed and in the Village of Menomonee Falls to a
maximum of over 137 m in the City of Mequon.  Large local differences in
the thickness of the Silurian dolomite are probably due to pre-glacial and
glacial erosion.  Dolomitic rocks of Devonian age are known to overlie the
Silurian dolomite at only three well locations in the southeastern part of
the Watershed.

      The unconsolidated deposits of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and
clay overlie the sedimentary rocks.  These were deposited during the
Pleistocene age by continental glaciers that covered the Region intermit-
tently between one million and possibly as recently as 5,000 years ago.
The deposits can be classified according to their origin into till and
stratified drift.  Till, a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand,
gravel, and boulders, was deposited from ice without the sorting action
of water.  Most of the Watershed is overlain by till in the form of either
ground moraine or end moraine.   Stratified drift consists primarily of
sand and gravel that was sorted and deposited as outwash by glacial
meltwater.  Part of the Village of Gennantown in the extreme northwestern
portion of the Menomonee River Watershed is overlain with stratified drift.
Although end moraine deposits are composed mainly of till, they may
locally contain stratified drift in the form of outwash sand and gravel.

      Holocene materials consist of alluvium and marsh deposits.  They

                                   111-27

-------
occur only along streams and in marshy areas,  and constitute a very small
fraction of the unconsolidated deposits covering the Watershed land
surface.

     Table 111-12 summarizes the lithology and water-yielding characteristics
of the unconsolidated, deposits of the Pleistocene and Holocene Ages in the
Menomonee River Watershed.   As indicated in the table, the unconsolidated
deposits are lithologically varied and generally yield only small quantities
of water to wells.
                                  Soils
                            Soil associations
     The nature of the soils in the Menomonee River Watershed is the result
of the interaction of parent materials, topography, climate, vegetation and
animals, and time.  Within each soil, the effects of these soil-forming
factors are reflected in the transformation of soil material in place,
chemical removal of soil components by leaching or physical removal by wind
or water erosion, additions by chemical precipitation or physical deposition
and transfer of some soil components from one part of the soil profile to
another.

     Diversity of soils exist in the Menomonee River Watershed due to
spatial variations of soil-forming factors particularly topography and
composition of parent materials.

     Soil associations indicate the general idea of the soils in a
watershed.  A soil association is a landscape that has a  distinctive
proportional pattern of soils.   It consists of one or more major soils and
at least one minor soil, and is named after the major soils.  The soils in
one association may occur in another, but in a different pattern.

     The five soil associations identified in the Menomonee River Watershed
were compiled from the soil survey reports of the four counties comprising
the Watershed (5,6,7).  The distribution of these soil associations are
depicted in Fig. III-4.  It is noted from Fig. III-4 that soils appear to
be more varied in the northwestern section of the Watershed.
Oz aukee-Mequon


          Well-drained to somewhat poorly-drained soils that have a subsoil
      of silty olay loam and* silty clay;  formed in thin loess and silty
      clay loam glacial till; on moraines.

     The soils in this association are in the uplands on silty clay loam
glacial till.   They are mostly gently sloping and sloping.   Somewhat
                                   111-28

-------
    Table 111-12.  Lithology and water-yielding characteristics of the unconsolidated deposits of
                   Pleistocene and Holocene Ages in the Menomonee River Watershed
         Unit
        General description
  Water-yielding characteristics
    Organic deposits
Peat and muck
Generally saturated; not used as a
source of water for wells
    Stream alluvium
Clay, silt, and sand; sorted and
stratified
Generally saturated but too thin
to be a source of water for wells
    Buried outwash
H   Ice-contact deposits
H
I
NJ
VO
Mostly sand and gravel, sorted and
stratified, lying within or beneath
glacial till

Clay, silt, sand, gravel,  and
boulders; unstratified to stratified
and unsorted to sorted
Yield small to moderate quantities
of water
Yield small quantities of water;
upper part commonly unsaturated
    Glacial till
Clay,  silt, sand, gravel, and
boulders; unsorted and unstratified
Permeability low to very low; not
used as a source of water for wells

-------
                                                                             Soil Association







                                                                     1  I  Ozaukee-Mequon





                                                                     2/1  Ozaukee-Martinton-Saylesville





                                                                     3]  Hochheim-Theresa





                                                                         Polla-Lamartine






                                                                         Houghton-PaIms-Ogden
Fig.  III-4.   Generalized soil map of the Menomonee  River Watershed.
                                           111-30

-------
poorly-drained soils are along waterways and in scattered broad drainageways.

     The major soils are the Ozaukee and Mequon series.  The Ozaukee soils
make up about 9,126 ha and Mequon about 4,360 ha.  Among the minor soils are
Ashkum and Sebewa.

     The Ozaukee soils are nearly level to sloping and they occupy ridges and
convex side slopes of glacial moraines.  They are well-drained to moderately
well-drained.  The surface layer of these soils is dark grayish-brown silt
loam and the subsoil is silty clay loam.

     The Mequon soils which are generally gently sloping occur in drainageways
and depressions.  They have restricted drainage and temporary high water
table.  Their surface layer is very dark grayish-brown silt loam, their
subsoil is silty clay loam to silty clay and mottled.

     The minor soils in this association are in depressions and on low flats
along major drainageways.  They are generally poorly drained.
Ozaukee-Martinton-Saylesville


          Well-drained and somewhat poorly-drained soils that have a
     subsoil of silty clay loam to clay, over silty clay loam glaoial
     till or lake-laid silt and olay; on ground moraines and laoustrine
     basins.

     This association consists of nearly level to steep soils that are under-
lain by calcareous silty clay loam glacial till and lacustrine silt and clay.
The landscape consists of soils that form broad, smooth hills and valleys.
The drainage patterns in the association is irregular.

     The Ozaukee soils occupy about 1,654 ha in the Watershed; Martinton
soils (formerly named Tichigan), 430 ha; and Saylesville soils, 206 ha.

     The Ozaukee soils are nearly level to sloping and they occupy ridges and
convex side slopes of glacial moraines.  They are well-drained to moderately
well-drained.   The surface layer of these soils is dark grayish-brown silt
loam and the subsoil is silty clay loam.

     The Saylesville soils are nearly level to gently sloping formed in
lacustrine silt and clay.  These well-drained soils have a silt loam surface
layer and a silt clay loam to clay subsoil.

     The Martinton soils, formed in lacustrine silt and clay, are in depres-
sional areas and somewhat poorly-drained.   Their surface layer is grayish-
brown silt loam and their subsoil is mottled silty clay.

     Some of the minor soils in this association are the Mequon and Montgomery
(formerly Bono) series.  These nearly level and gently sloping soils are in
depressions or in drainageways between the gently sloping soils of the broad

                                    111-31

-------
uplands.  The Mequon soils are somewhat poorly drained and the Montgomery
soils are poorly drained.
Hochheim-Theresa
          Well-drained soils that have a subsoil of clay loam and silty
     clay loam; formed in loess and loam glacial till,  on ground moraines.

     This association consists of nearly level to steep soils, mostly on
drumlins, that are underlain by calcareous sandy loam to loam glacial till.
The major soils of this association are well-drained.

     The major soils of this association occupy about 1,989 ha of the
Watershed.  Hochheim soils make up about 1,055 ha and Theresa about 934 ha.

     The Hochheim soils are generally sloping or moderately steep and occur
mainly on ground moraines and convex side slopes of drumlins above the
Theresa soils.  These well-drained soils formed in calcareous loamy glacial
till.  They have a loam and silt loam surface layer and a clay loam to
loam subsoil.

     The Theresa soils, which are nearly level to sloping, occur in convex
side slopes of uplands, generally below the Hochheim soils.  They are under-
lain by loess or calcareous loamy glacial till and are well-drained.  The
surface layer of these soils is dark grayish-brown silt loam and the subsoil
is mainly clay loam to loam.

     The minor soils in the association include the Mayville, Lamartine,
Brookston, Pella and Miami series.  These soils except the Miami series
occur along foot slopes or between sloping to steep soils on hills and ridges
and they are somewhat poor to poorly drained.
Pella-Lamartine
          Somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils that have a sub-
     soil of clay loam or silty clay loam; formed in loess and underlying
     loam to sandy loam glacial till.

     The soils in this association are nearly level to gently sloping under-
lain by calcareous loam to sandy loam glacial till.  They occur on ground
moraines.  The topography consists mainly of low drainageways and some broad,
irregular areas between uplands.

     The major soils occupy about 1,202 ha of the Watershed with Pella
(formerly Ehler) comprising 929 ha and Lamartine, 273 ha.

     The nearly level Pella soils formed in calcareous loamy till occur in
low lands.  These soils are poorly drained.  The surface layer of these soils

                                     111-32

-------
is black silt loam and the subsoil is gray silty clay loam and silt loam.

     The Lamartine soils are nearly level to gently sloping formed in loess
over calcareous loamy till.  These soils along footslopes of uplands are
somewhat poorly drained.  They have a surface layer of very dark gray silt
loam.  Their subsoil is mottled silt loam and silty clay loam.

     Among the minor soils of this association are Brookston, Kendall
(formerly Clyman) and Palm series.  These somewhat poorly drained soils are
underlain by loamy glacial till.
Bought on-Palms-Ogden
          Very poorly drained organic soils along drainageways,
     depressions and in old Idkebeds.
^n
     This association consists of nearly level, very poorly drained organic
soils formed from dead and decaying remains of plants.  They occur on lowlands
that in most places are along drainageways, in marshy depressions, and in old
lakebeds.

     The major soils in the association occupy about 1,555 ha of the
Watershed.  The Houghton soils make up about 782 ha of the Watershed and
Palm soils about 497 ha and Ogden soils about 276 ha.

     The Houghton soils, which occur in larger organic areas, contain more
than 42 inches of muck or mucky peat deposits over sandy to loamy materials.
The Palms soils are shallower than the Houghton and are generally in narrow
drainageways and depressions or along outer margins of Houghton soils.  They are
are formed in less than 42 inches of organic deposits over loamy materials.
The Ogden soils, found in depressions and in old lakebeds, have black mucky
peat underlain by clayey material at a depth of less than 60 inches.

     The minor soils in this association are poorly drained and include  the
Pella, Brookston, Mussey, Sebewa, Muskego, Rollin, and Adrian series.


           Soil texture, slope, permeability and hydrologic group


     In the Menomonee River Watershed about 70 soil series and 100 soil types
have been identified.  The area covered and some properties of the various
soil types are listed in Table 111-13.

     Detailed soils data are available for 29,290 ha, or 83% of the Menomonee
River Watershed.  The excluded area consists of the heavily urbanized eastern-
most portion of the Watershed.  Detailed descriptions of the soils as well
as interpretations of soil characteristics and properties for engineering,
agricultural, resource conservation, and urban and rural planning purposes are

                                    111-33

-------
Table 111-13.
Areal extent and some water management character-
istics of the various soil types in the
Menomonee River Watershed


Ozaukee
Mequon
Hochheim
Theresa
Ehler***
Sebewa
Knowles
Matherton
Flavville
Casco
Lama nine
Col wood
Fox
Pistakee
Kibble
Clyman
West land
Sleeth
Brooks ton
Dodge
Fabius
Lorenzo
Nenno
Thackery
Ockley
Mosel
Lawson
Abington
Blount
Ash ford
Mussey
Hebron
Aztalan
Yahara
Uallkill
Crosby
Kane
Wauconda
Miami
Ashkum-fleecher
Dorchester
Varna
Tippecanoe
Matherton
Fox
Hochheim
Fabius
Casco-Rodman
Aztalan
Sebewa
Knowles
Ockley
Hochhelm-Theresa
Hebron
Mussey
Rodman
Dousman
Yahara
Hough ton
Palms
Ogden
Rollin
Adrian
Muck ego
Sandy loams
Fox
Wea
Lapeer
Parr
Yahara
Colwood
Wauconda
Hackect
Tustln
Cranby
Tedrow
Silty_ clav loams
Ashkum
Tot.1 ar«a of th«
3P ha; and highly

Areal ext

23,322
10, 780
4,360
1,05
93
92
52
49
455
378
281
273
256
228
188
179
167
160
147
92
85
72
60
57
35
31
30
30
28
25
21
20
20
18
17
12
11
9.4
6.5
5.6
4.9
3.8
3.2
3.1
2.2
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.2
409
103
59
52
46
4S
23
15
10
5.3
5.1
5.1
4.9
3.9
3 1
2.3
1.8
1.6
0.7
0.5
782
497
276
19
6.6
6.0
13
6 0
4.3
1 1
0 6
0 4
0.3
0.3
7.2
3 6
3 1
0.4
0 1
1,155
684
471

urbanized area

ent*
	 Hy

88.0
40.7
16.4
3.98
.52
.51
.99
.86
.72
.43
1.06
1.03
0.97
0.86
0.71
0 68
0.63
0.60
0 55
0.35
0.32
0 27
0.23
0.22
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0 04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0 01
1 54
0 39
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.09
0.06
0 04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0 01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2 95
1 88
1.04
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
<0 01
<0.01
<0.01
cO 01
<0 01
0.03
0.01
<0 01
<0.01
4.36
2.58
1.78

- 5,981 ha



C
C
B
B
D
D
B
C
B
B
C
D
B
C
C
c
D
B
C
D
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
C
D
D
C
B
D
B
C
C
D
D
C
C
c
B
B
D
C-D
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
A-B
C
D
B
B
B
B
D
A
B
C
B
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
B
B
C
D
C
B
D
A
D
D





0-20
0-20
0-23
0-23
0-25
0-36
0-18
0-28
0-28
0-23
0-30
0-30
0-25
0-64
0-38
0-30
0-30
0-20
0-30
0-30
0-25
0-30
0-23
0-20
0-33
0-30
0-33
0-33
0-64
0-46
0-28
0-28
0-46
0-23
0-23
0-25
0-30
0-81
0-30
0-33
0-25
0-28
0-30
0-30
0-33
0-51
0-33
0-30
0-33
0-25
0-23
0-23
0-23
0-23
0-23
0-36
0-23
0-33
0-23
0-23
0-23
0-46
0-20
0-25
0-33
0-20
0-25
0->152
0-76
0-64
0-96
0-66
0-64
0-25
0-33
0-30
0-28
0-25
0-30
0-25
0-25
0-30
0-23
0-33
0-46



Permeability

2.0-6 4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
6.4-12.7
2.0-6.4
2.0-6-4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
6.4-12.7
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2 0-6.4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0->25.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6 4
2.0-6 4
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
>25.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
6 4-12.7
6.4-12.7
6.4-12.7
6.4-12. 7
6 4-12 7
6.4-12 7
6 4-12. 7
6.4-12.7
6.4-12.7
6.4-12 7
2 0-6.4
2.0-6.4
2.0-6.4
12. 7-25 4
12.7-25.4
12.7-25.4
2.0-6.4
0.5-2 0





0 51
0.51
0.46
0.51
0.61
0.61
0 51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.64
0.51
0 56
0.46
0.51
0.61
0.56
0.51
0.61
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.61
0.61
0.51
0.46
0.61
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0 51
0.46
0.51
0 56
0.41
0.51
0.61
0.51
0.51
0.56
0.61
0 41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.05-0 41
0.51
0.51
0.41
0.51
0. 1
0 41- 51
0. 1
0 1
0 5
0 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 6
0.51
>0.51
>0.51
>0.51
>0.51
>0 51
0 30
0 41
0.30
0.41
0.56
0.51
0.51
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.51
0.51


3 - Montgomery.


90-150
30-90
>150
>150
0-30
0-30
>150
30-90
90-150
>150
30-90
0-30
>150
30-90
30-90
30-90
0-30
>150
30-90
0-30
90-150
>150
30-90
>150
30-90
90-150
>150
30-90
30-90
0-30
30-90
90-150
0-30
90-150
30-90
30-90
0-30
0-30
30-90
30-90
30-90
>150
>150
0-30
0-90
90-150
90-150
90-150
30-90
>150
M50
>150
30-90
>150
30-90
0-30
>150
-•150
^150
-•150
90-150
0-30
90-150
30-90
>150
30-90
0-30
0-30
0-30
0-30
0-30
0-30
M50
>150
>150
>150
30-90
0-30
30-90
>150
0-30
30-90
0-30
0-30




Drainage class
Well to moderately
Somewhat poor
Well
Well
Poor
Poor to very poor
Well
Somewhat poor
Moderately well
Well
Somewhat poor
Well
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Poor
Well
Somewhat poor
Poor
Moderately well
Well
Somewhat poor
Well
Somewhat poor
Moderately well
Well
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Very poor
Somewhat poor
Moderately well
Poor to very poor
Well to moderately
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Poor to very poor
Poor
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
Well
Well
Somewhat poor Co po
Well to moderately
Well to moderately
Moderately well
Well
Well
Well
Somewhat poor
Well to excessive
Somewhat poor
Poor Co very poor
Well
Well
Well to excessive
Well
Well to moderately
Moderately well
Somewhat poor
Well
Very poor
Very poor
Very poor
Poor
Well
Well
Well
Well
Somewhat poor
Poor co very poor
Somewhat poor
Excessive
Poor
Somewhat poor
Very poor





well



well
well
well
well






                               111-34

-------
found in the planning report prepared by SEWRPC (8).   Updated and correlated
information is given in the soil survey reports for the counties of Ozaukee
(5), Washington (6) and Milwaukee and Waukesha (7).

     Soils data in the Watershed such as soil types,  area, slope, permeability,
hydrologic soil groups and other properties have been incorporated in the Land
IMS.  Utilizing this system soils information can be retrieved and displayed
in tabular or graphical form.

     Groupings were made according to textural class, slope, permeability of
the A-horizon, and hydrologic soil groups.  Table 111-14 summarizes the areas
under each category of textural class, slope, permeability and hydrologic
soil group for the entire Watershed.   These properties are deemed the most
important ones influencing the potential movement of soils in the Watershed.
Distributions of these properties in smaller areas, i.e., in 48 subwatersheds
of the Watershed,  are discussed in Volume 2, Part IV.

     The textural class that predominates in the Watershed is silt loam
(Tables 111-13 and 111-14).   Silt loams are well-distributed throughout the
Watershed with Ozaukee silt  loam being the major soil type.   This textural
class occupies 23,322 ha or 88% of the 26,493 ha mapped as soil types.  The
organic soils—mucks or mucky peats (6.0%), and the fine-textured soils—
silty clay loams (4.4%) occupy moderate areas.  Only small scattered areas of
coarse textured soils, sandy loams and loamy sands, are found in the Watershed.

     Slope is one soil characteristic that has a strong influence on the
erosion of soil particles on the land surface.  Soil slope varies from a low
of 0 to 2% to a high of 30 to 45%.  It can be seen from Table 111-14 that
most of the soils in the Watershed are nearly level to gently sloping, i.e.,
in the 0 to 2% and 2 to 6% slope ranges corresponding to 34 and 55%,
respectively, of the area that was mapped as soil types.  Sloping areas (6 to
12% slope range) represent about 10% of the mapped area while steep areas
(> 12% slopes) comprise only a small percentage.   Although high slope areas
represent only a small portion of the Watershed they may present a serious
erosion hazard.

     Permeability reflects the rate of water movement through a saturated
soil.   Generally,  fine textured soils are less permeable than coarse textured
soils.  Permeability of the A-horizon varies from a low of 0.5 to 2.0 cm/hr
to a high of > 25.4 cm/hr (Table 111-14).   Soils with low permeability,
i.e.,  2.0 to 6.4 cm/hr are dominant,  occupying about 88% of the total area
mapped.  Soils with a very low permeability (0.5 to 2.0 cm/hr) exist  in
about 2% of the area and those with moderate to high permeability (> 6.4
cm/hr), about 10%.

     The soils of the Menomonee River Watershed have been classified into four
hydrologic soil groups designated as A, B, C, and D,  based upon those soil
properties affecting runoff.  Hydrologic soil groups reflect the ability of
soils to restrain runoff from a heavy storm after they have been thoroughly
wetted.

     Group A soils are mainly sandy or gravelly.   They exhibit very low

                                     III-35

-------
             Table 111-14.   Summary of the areal (ha)  extent  of  soil textural class,  slope,  permeability of A horizon and
                            hydrologic group in the Menomonee River Watershed
M
M
I
lo
Textural class
Soil property
Slope, %
On
— Z
2—6
6-12

12-20
20-30
30-45
Total
Permeability,
cm/hr
0.5- 2.0
2.0- 6.4
6.4-12.7
12. 7-25.4
>25.4
Total
Hydrologic
group
A
B
C
D
Total
Silt loam

6,004
14,393

2,561
335
26
3.4
23,322


0
22,365
957
0
0
23,322


0
3,936
17,346
2,040
23,322
Loam

383
136

33
45
17
0
614


0
384
205**
0
25
614


2
229
165
218**
614
Sandy loam

0.8
8.5

3.4
0
0
0
13


0
1.0
12
0
0
13


0
12
0.7
0.3
13
Loamy sand

3.1
4.0

0.1
0
0
0
7.2


0
0
0
7.2
0
7.2


3.7
3.1
0
0.4
7.2
Silty clay loam

1,119
27

8.6
0
0
0
1,155


471
684
0
0
0
1,155


0
0
0
1,155
1,155
Muck/mucky peat

1,535
56

0
0
0
0
1,591


0
°+
1,591
0
0
1,591


0
0
o.
1,591
1,591
Total*

9,045
14,625

2,606
380
43
3
26,702


471
23,434
2,765
7
25
26,702


6
4,180
17,512
5,004
26,702
              *Excludes  areas  of  filled or made  land  (sand - 15 ha,  loam - 824 ha, clay -  1,503 hr), pond  and  lake  (38  ha),  quarry
               and gravel  pit  (140 ha)  and dump  (68 ha).
             **Includes  alluvial  lands  (205  ha).
              +Includes  marsh  (3.9 ha).

-------
runoff potential because of high infiltration capacity, high permeability,
and good internal drainage.

     Group B soils have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures which
permit moderate amounts of runoff due to moderate infiltration rate, moderate
permeability, and moderately good internal drainage.

     Group C soils are medium to fine textured soils.  Potential for runoff
from these soils is large because of slow infiltration capacity, low
permeability and poor internal drainage.

     Group D soils consist mainly of 1. clay soils with high shrink-swell
potential, 2. soils with high permanent water table, 3. soils with claypan
or clay layer at or near the surface, and 4. shallow soils with nearly
impervious substrata.  These soils have high runoff potential because of very
slow infiltration rate, low permeability and very poor internal drainage.

     Hydrologic soil Group C is dominant in the Watershed (Table 111-14).
This hydrologic soil group covers about 66% of the portion of the Watershed
from which detailed soils data are available.  Only a negligible portion of
the Watershed is occuped by Group A soils while Groups B and D soils exist
in 16 and 19%, respectively, of the total area mapped.  Based on this
classification the majority of soils in the Watershed have high runoff
potential.
                         Surface Water Storage Area
     Natural surface water storage areas in a watershed serve to modify
runoff or rainfall-snowmelt events primarily by decreasing peak discharges
and by diminishing the volume of direct runoff as a result of increased
infiltration.  Natural surface storage areas are generally divided into
lakes, wetlands and floodland areas.

     No major lake, i.e., 20 ha or more, lies in the Menomonee River
Watershed.  Water areas,  including 14 minor lakes and ponds, comprise only
38 ha.  Wetlands consisting of swamps and marshes are located mainly in the
headwater portions of the Watershed or along the central western edge.   These
comprise 1,070 ha or 3% of the Watershed area.

     The third type of surface water storage area consists of the floodlands
generally associated with streams and water courses.   Because of the absence
of major lakes and the small areas of remaining wetlands, floodlands consti-
tute the main natural surface water  storage areas with the potential for
reducing peak discharges  of runoff (1).  Floodlands are an integral part of
the stream system of a watershed and, as such, are regularly inundated by
waters.  During inundation the floodlands, in effect, store and retard direct
runoff, thereby decreasing downstream flood discharges.
                                   111-37

-------
                             REFERENCES- III
1.   Walesh, S.  G.   Land Use,  Population and Physical Characteristics of
    the  Menomonee  River Watershed.  Part I:  Land Data Management  System.
    Final Report of the Menomonee River Pilot  Watershed Study, Vol.  2,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1979.

2.   Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.   A Comprehensive
    Plan for the Menomonee River Watershed. Vol.  1.  Inventory, Findings,
    and Forecasts.  SEWRPC Planning Report No.  26,  1976.

3.   Lowry, W.  P.  The Climate of the City.  In:   Weather and Life:  An
    Introduction to Biometeorology.  Academic  Press, 1969.

4.   Watt, K. E.  F.  Urban, Regional and National Planning in Light of
    Ecological Principles.  In:   Principles of Environmental Science
    McGraw-Hill Book Co.,  New York, 1973.

5.   Parker, D.  E., D. C.  Kurer and J.  A.  Steingraeber.   Soil Survey
    of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin.  U.S. Dept.  of Agriculture, Soil
    Conservation Service,  1970.

6.   Schmude, K.  0.  Soil Survey of Washington  County, Wisconsin.  U.S.
    Dept. of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation Service, 1971.

7.   Steingraeber, J. A.  and C. E. Reynolds.  Soil Survey of Milwaukee
    and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin.   U.S. Dept.  of Agriculture,
    Soil Conservation Service, 1971.

8.   Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.   Soils of
    Southeastern Wisconsin, SEWRPC Planning Report No.  8, 1966.
                                  111-38

-------
APPENDIX A.   LAND USE AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AT THE
               PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE LAND  USE MONITORING SITES

          >, 4) 00  *J
        •H 13
        C 3
        4)
        •ss:
        s^
        a:  c

                                       T 00 -3- O •£> \D
                                  O f> m O r- t
                                        5 CM m oo d
                                                            I O -» •—i o O C
                                                       1 iH CN O ^D n u

                                                       > fl 00 CO -H u
                                                              -J QO -J O iH >O >
1


Ss
B
ra


oo ra
C J3
U) (N




C 3
•S w
•rl O
1^
0)


5"
B



00
c
H





c
•o
H
DC




>.



*-
1



•o ra

c
e QJ
>-i TJ
ra H
0)
DC
?00
•H

>> >1

G B

1 t
•H -H
3 3
e e


ra ra

B C
•a -a

4) 41
os a:
0
OJ
>
-S 4j

qj >
C 4)
3 V)
T3 -D
G C



CO .H
•H ra
c
, "S S
3 TJ a

£ w





>,

OC
•H *O
^
ra j=
a. oc



* "O
4J O
n M

<4-i tg
oat
^


ra
(0

-
>
H

£


c


"ra
^
ra
Is






U

t-< C
C M
O U



>> U rH
I-H 3 ra
XI T3 4)
B 
o

(S K
U


-a
4)

,-H
*J

"c °
-H °
0)




•H (U
a 41
>

4) 00

        in  —I -3- C
        r-H  ,-t O C
         o ra 3 3 -n  ^H
                           H e
                           >-> a.
                           3^
                                        >, U -

                                        ih:
                                                    O  >£P *0
                                                             3 3
                                                             Ci C
                                   111-39

-------
                                           Table III-A-1  (continued)
 I
.e-
o
3 digit
SEWRPC code

111
120
199
210
430

641
662
681
731



111

310
380
418
426
430
441
510



111
141
199
210
340
380
418
430
611
682
732
815
820
921
922

. 	
Land use type
STOPET no. '13010 Schoonmaker C
Residential single family nonfanu
lot under 2 ha
Residential two family
Retail sales and service
Off street parking
assembly
assembly
Local educational
Regional health
Local cemetaries



STORET no. 413034 Wauwatosa
lot under 2 ha
s ent al land under development
Industrial manufacturing
Industrial storage
expressway
Truck terminal
Off street parking
Railroad right of way
Communication and utilities
nuse ur an an

STORET no. 413625 New Berlin
Residential single family nonfarm
lot under 2 ha
Residential multi-family low rise
Residential land under development
Retail sales and service
Industrial wholesale
Industrial storage
expressway
Land access and collector streets
Off street parking
Local administrative, safety,
assembly
Regional cemetaries
Rec. private land related rec. area
Ag. pasture
Ag. orchard and nurseries
Unused urban land
Unused rural land

--.,.-- -r. ----.,,..,
Area, ha
reek
96.84
21.36
2.54
5.59
2 31

1. 71
2.91
1.97
1.61
178.33


7.72

24.51
2.43
4.46
7.76
30.32
1.06
1.16



126.53
1.50
5.69
3.45
.07
.06
21.80
2.84
.66
24.29
1.38
24.49
1.47
4.53
1.10
222.87

Z

54.31
11.98
1.42
3.14
1.30

.96
1 63
1.11
.90
100.01


7.03

9.15
22.30
2.21

7.06
27.60
.96
1.06



56.77
.67
2.55
1.55
.03
.03
9.78
1.27
.30
10.90
.62
10.99
.66
2.03
.50
100.00

3 digit
SEURPC code

111
112
199
210

430
641
661
820
921







120
141
. 199
210
380


426
430
510
611
641
681
682
781
811
812
813
814
815
820
871
873
910
921
922
940


Land use type
STORET no. 683090 Elm Grove
Residential single family nonfarm
lot under 2 ha
Retail sales and service
expressway
Off street parking
assembly
Local educational
Local health-clinics
Unused urban land
1.2-2.0 ha


STORET no. 463001 DonRes Bay

lot under 2 ha
lot over 2 ha
farm bldg.
Residential land under development
Retail sales and service
Industrial storage

L d
Truck terminal
Off street parking
Communication and utilities
assembly
Local educational
Local cemetaries
Regional cemetaries
Rec. public water related rec. area
Ag. row crops
Ag. grain crops
Ag. vegetable crops
Ag. hay
Ag. pasture
Ag. orchard and nurseries
Ag. farm bldg. no assoc. animal hush.
Ag. farm bldg. aasoc. with
dairy cattle
General wetlands
Unused urban land
Unused rural land
General woodlands
Lake, rivers, streams, canals

Area, ha

130.66
.04
5.71
.41

2.27
1.10
.47
1.21
3.00

.59
165.45


146.13

3.08
.84
34.42
1.18
.39


.51
1.05
15.14
.51
2.42
1.01
24.01
.34
720.30
170.48
218.12
308.35
105.79
28,19
20.46
11.87
48.61
1.32
33.31
181.92
13.98
2,145.00
%

78.99
.02
3.45
.25

1.37
.66
.29
.73
1.82

1.57
100.01


6.81
.01
.59
.04
1.60
.06
.02
.95

.02
.05
.71
.02
.11
.05
1.12
.02
33.58
7.95
10.17
14.38
4.93
1.31
.95
.55
2.27
.06
1.55
8.48
.65
99.99

-------
  Fig. III-A-1.  Allis Chalmers Corporation.  STORET number 413616
     Stormwater from this drainage area is conveyed via an underground
stormwater sewerage system to the plant's clarifier pond.   The main storm
sewer, leading to the clarifier pond, contains an overflow weir which
directs a portion of the stormwater flow to the outlet system where the
monitoring station is located.  Stormwater flow from the clarifier pond will
depend on the volume of the flow into the pond and the level of the pond.
Almost all storms result in flow to the outlet storm sewerage system since
the pond is maintained at its maximum level.   Stormwater enters the storm-
water sewerage system of the City of West Allis which drains into the
Menomonee River.  Heavy industrial activity predominates in this drainage
area.  The plant buildings were constructed in the early 1900's.
                                      111-41

-------
   Fig. III-A-2.  Stadium Interchange,  1-94.   STORET number 413615
     Stormwater from this drainage area is conveyed via an extensive under-
ground stormwater sewerage system directly to the Menomonee River which can
be seen in the upper left portion of the photograph.   The drainage area
includes the interchange and approach roads,  and in addition, a parking lot
and a portion of a single family residential  area and cemetery in the lower
right portion of the photograph.  The monitoring station is located in the
outlet stormwater sewer 61 m above the sewer's outfall to the Menomonee
River.
                                     111-42

-------
   Fig.  III-A-3.   Brookfield Square Shopping Center.   STORE! number 683089
     Stormwater from the shopping mall,  an office building and their
parking lots drains directly to an underground stormwater sewerage system.
In addition, a small residential area,  an outdoor theater and unused land
drains via natural drainage ditches to  the shopping mall's stormwater
sewerage system.   Most structures in the drainage area were constructed in
the last 15 years.  The only exception  being a 7800 m2 expansion of the mall
and parking area during mid-April to July of 1977.   The monitoring station
is located in the outlet stormwater sewer which drains to Underwood Creek,
a major tributary to the Menomonee River.
                                      111-43

-------

  Fig. III-A-4.  Noyes Creek.  STORE! number 413011
     Stormwater from this drainage area is conveyed via an underground storm
sewerage system to Noyes Creek which is an open grassed channel.  The area
is predominantly medium density residential with two large commercial
complexes and a major expressway traversing the area.  Development started
in the area during mid-1960's. Prior to and throughout the study period,
residential construction continued on approximately 8 ha of land adjoining
the Creek.   In addition, approximately 1.2 km of roadway were  constructed
in the summer of 1977, and in the late summer construction began on a 2 ha
site for an electrical power transfer station.   Construction activity was
always preceded by the construction of the stormwater sewerage network.  No
sediment control procedures were employed at any of the construction sites.
The monitoring station is located on Noyes Creek approximately 400 m above
the Creek's confluence with the Little Menomonee River.
                                     111-44

-------
Ul
                              Fig. III-A-5.  Schoonmaker Creek.  STORET number 413010
           Stouter  fr« this  drainage  area  is conveyed via  an underground^o™

-------
           Fig. III-A-6.  City of Wauwatosa.  STORST number 413034
     The drainage area is divided approximately in half by 124th Street.  The
area west of 124th Street is drained by a series of natural drainage ditches
which empty into the fully storm-sewered eastern half of the area.  Light
industry, wholesale and retail establishments predominate in the drainage
area.  The Briggs and Stratton Corporation plant and parking lot has its own
drainage system (23% of the area) which empties into an open cooling reservoir.
Any excess stormwater is passed into the regular storm sewerage system from
the reservoir, otherwise the water is circulated through the plant and reser-
voir as a closed system.  The monitoring station is located in the outlet
storm-water sewer that services the drainage area approximately 850 m above
the point where the sewer drains into the Menomonee River.
                                    111-46

-------
                                     v::-'i».,t»«sC»fiC:"*>,»Jt;iiM A * *:> V1L Js

   Fig. III-A-7.  Timmerman Airport.  STORET number 413614
     Stormwater from this drainage area  is  conveyed  via an extensive under-
ground stormwater sewerage system.  The  hangar  areas,  roof drains,  parking
lots and turnabout areas are directly connected to storm sewers.   The runways
are not storm sewered, but there are stormwater inlets located nearby in the
grassed areas, as well as intermittently throughout  the grassed field.   The
airport services approximately 135,000 small propeller and turbo-propeller
planes each year.  The main airport structures were built 20 to 50 years ago.
The monitoring station is located in the outlet stormwater sewer and
ultimately drains to the Little Menomonee River.
                                      Ill-47

-------
  Fig.  III-A-8.   City of New Berlin.   STORET  number 413625
     Stormwater,  from this drainage area,  is  mostly conveyed via natural
drainage ways to  a central drainage ditch,  which in some sections is
undergoing bank erosion.   Two small portions  of the area incorporate road
side culverts and open asphalt-lined drainage ways  just  above the monitoring
station.  Approximately 75% of the area is  comprised of  low to medium
density residential housing established about 25 years ago with the upper
25% in agricultural and open lands which is slowly  yielding to development.
Throughout the study period construction continued  on a  small number of
lots, however, due to the low relief in the area and the natural drainage
characteristics it is believed that the construction impact on water
quality was minor.  Portions of the area are heavily treed, however no leaf
pickup program is provided nor is leaf burning prohibited.  The monitoring
station is located on a drainage ditch which is tributary to the south
branch of Underwood Creek, a tributary to the Menomonee  River.
                                     111-48

-------
 Fig. III-A-9,  Donges Bay Road.  STORET number 463001
     Stormwater from this rural drainage area is conveyed via natural
drainage channels to the Little Menomonee River.  The land use is
predominantly agricultural.  The population of the City of Mequon
contained in the Watershed is 780.  The monitoring station is located
on the Little Menomonee River approximately 5 km downstream from the
headwaters.
                                111-49

-------
I
Ul
o
                           Fig.  III-A-10.  Village of Elm Grove.  STORE! number 683090
            Stormwater  from this drainage area  is  conveyed via  a  system  of well maintained  natural  (grass)
       drainage  ways to Underwood Creek.   Two distinct  neighborhoods  exist in  the drainage  area  separated  by
       North Avenue.  The upper half of  the  drainage  area is  an older (1950) medium  density residential  area
       which is  well treed and is shown  in the  left photograph.   The  lower half of the  drainage  area  is  a  newer
       (1965)  low density residential area with large (minimum  0.2  ha) well maintained  lots (right  photograph).
       Only the  largest storms (_> 1.3 cm, total rainfall) generate  runoff from this  drainage area.  The  station
       is  located on a  drainage ditch approximately 180 m above the ditch's confluence  with Underwood Creek, a
       major tributary  of the Menomonee  River.

-------
                  PART IV
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBWATERSHEDS
                     by
              G,  V,  SI MS I MAN
               S,  G,  WALESH
                    IV-i

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     Important natural and cultural features of 48 subwatersheds comprising
the Menomonee River Watershed are described in more detail so that variations
in pollutant loadings through land surface drainage can be evaluated.   Soil
characteristics,  land use distribution,  degree of imperviousness and erosion
potential in the  subwatersheds are presented.   Variation in erosion potential
is closely associated with land use.
                                   IV-ii

-------
                             CONTENTS - PART IV
Title Page	IV-i
Abstract	IV-ii
Contents 	 IV-iii
Figure   	IV-iv
Tables	IV-v

   IV-1.  Introduction	IV-1
   IV-2.  The Subwatersheds	IV-2
            Soil Characteristics	IV-2
            Land Use	IV-6
            Soil Erosion Potential	'	IV-6

References	IV-11
                                   IV-iii

-------
                                   FIGURE
Number                                                                Page
IV-1     The 48 subwatersheds	IV-3
                                   IV-iv

-------
                                   TABLES
Number
IV-1     Areal distribution (ha) of soil textural class and other
         land type in the Menomonee River Watershed	IV-4

IV-2     Areal extent of soils grouped according to slope categories,
         permeability of surface soil (A horizon) and hydrologic soil
         group for the 48 subwatersheds in the Menomonee River
         Watershed	    IV-5

IV-3     Land use categories (1975) in the 48 subwatersheds of the
         Menomonee River Watershed  	    IV-7

IV-4     Areal extent of soils grouped according to erosion potential
         predicted by the Universal Soil Loss Equation and annual
         unit erosion potential for the 48 subwatersheds in the
         Menomonee River Watershed  	    IV-9
                                    IV-v

-------
                             IV-1.   INTRODUCTION
     In analyzing land-related pollution in a watershed system it is essen-
tial to identify those land areas in the basin that are likely to serve as
sources of pollutants.  Source identification is particularly important in a
heterogeneous basin like the Menomonee River Watershed—a basin that is
diverse with respect to natural features such as soil type,  land slope and
vegetation and cultural features such as land use and land management
practices.  Watersheds that are spatially diverse with respect to the natural
and man-made features are more likely to exhibit wide spatial variation with
respect to potential for pollution than are more spatially homogeneous basins.

     Attempts to describe in more detail the natural and man-made features of
smaller units of land surface are presented herein.  Some 48 subwatersheds in
the Menomonee River Watershed are described so that variations in pollutant
loadings through land surface drainage can be evaluated.  Included in the
description are soil characteristics such as textural class, slope,  perme-
ability and hydrologic group, land use and degree of imperviousness.  An
analysis of the spatial variation of erosion potential in the 48 subwater-
sheds also is presented.
                                     IV-1

-------
                          IV-2.  THE SUBWATERSHEDS
     The 48 subwatersheds delineated by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC) are depicted in Fig. IV-1.  One, or an aggre-
gate, of subwatersheds constitutes the drainage area adjacent to a mainstem
or predominantly single land use monitoring station (l).

            Subwatershed Nos.       Adjacent monitoring station nos.

          12A,B,C,D and E                        673001
          10A,B,C,D and E                        683002
          7A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H                   683001
          11A.B and C                            463001
          9                                      413011
          8A,B and C                             413008
          6A,B,C,D,E and F                       413007
          4A,B,C  and D                          413006
          3A,B,C,D,E,F,G, and H                  413005
          5                                      413010
          2                                      413009
          1A,1B and 19                           413004
                             Soil Characteristics
     Utilizing the Land DMS, groupings were made according to soil textural
class, slope, permeability and hydrologic soil class for each subwatershed.
The areal distributions of the various groupings for the 48 subwatersheds
are given in Tables IV-1 and IV-2.

     Silt loam is the textural class that predominates in the subwatersheds
(Table IV-1).  Loam, silty clay loam and muck soils occupy considerably fewer
areas in many of the subwatersheds  and only small areas of sandy soils are
found in a few of the subwatersheds.  Filled areas, consisting essentially
of loamy and clayey materials are found in most of the subwatersheds occupy-
ing the lower 75% of the Menomonee  Watershed.

     Slope is the principal natural land feature affecting soil erosion.
Table IV-2 indicates that the majority of soils in the subwatersheds have
slopes of 0 to 2 and 2 to 6% (nearly level to gently sloping) although
substantial areas have slopes of >  6%.  Erosion hazard is high in the steep
areas (> 6%) but may also be high in gently sloping areas where soils are
under intensive cultivation.

     Permeability, defined as the rate of water movement through a saturated

                                     IV-2

-------
Fig. IV-1.  The 48 subwatersheds.
                                IV-3

-------
Table IV-1.  Areal distribution  (ha) of soil textural class  and other land type in the  Menomonee  River Waters
Textural class
Subwatershed*
12 A
12 B
12 C
12 D
12 E
Subtotal
10A
10B
IOC
10D
10E
Subtotal
7A
7B
7C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
Subtotal
11A
11B
lie
Subtotal
9
8A
8B
8C
Subtotal
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
Subtotal
4A
4B
4C
4D
Subtotal
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
3G
3H
Subtotal
Total
*Subwatersheds
Silt loam
342
1,069
447
870
1,164
3,892
368
380
411
1,315
701
3,175
787
636
672
1,270
254
724
1,190
206
5,739
438
753
630
1,821
331
486
666
833
1,985
723
735
662
543
662
186
3,511
28
53
282
357
720
164
346
161
375
106
447
64
479
2,142
23,316
1A, IB, 2,
Loam**
5
36
4
0
6
51
0
12(7)
1
100(3)
6
119(10)
27(13)
7
0
6(2)
43(21)
2
6
6(6)
97(42)
2
26(12)
20(4)
48(16)
2
17(17)
5
1
23(17)
43(24)
120
5(4)
11(8)
3
2
184(36)
0
0
0
0
0
3(2)
8(8)
0
25(25)
31(31)
1(1)
0
23(17)
91(84)
615(205)
5, 19 and
Sandy
loam
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
port ions
Loamy
pond
sand
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
of 3A,
Silty clay
loam
7
21
23
10
179
240
50
7
61
47
64
229
8
31
30
65
1
42
6
1
184
17
25
10
52
39
13
88
35
136
4
48
18
24
52
11
157
0
1
8
55
64
0
0
2
40
0
0
1
11
54
1,155
3B, 3H, 4A,
Muck/mucky
peat+
75
53
88
101
243(0.4)
560
132
0
28
113
79
352
0
27
0
16
0
5(3.1)
12
0
60
58
44
105
207
0
0
0 4(0.4)
27
27
7
6
4
24
233
90
364
0
0
0
17
17
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1,588(3.9)
4B, 4C, 4D and
Filled areas
Sand
0
1
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
6B u
Loan
0
1
1
0
0
2
36
57
0
2
0
95
4
41
0
4
4
16
1
26
96
12
0
0
12
22
0
26
61
87
137
150
36
28
22
5
378
0
0
24
9
33
6
37
53
2
1
0
0
0
99
824
ith an
i Clay
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
3
0
8
0
25
154
34
0
32
0
43
125
12
400
0
0
0
0
144
83
66
38
187
56
102
16
10
3
0
187
28
0
0
20
48
0
40
8
162
91
46
85
82
514
1,505 '
aggregate
Dump
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
12
12
0
29
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
area
Quarry and
gravel pit
0
17
7
0
0
24
0
0
0
19
0
19
2
26
0
7
0
0
0
0
35
0
5
0
5
0
0
1
4
5
0
12
2
29
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
9
140
of 5,983 ha
Pond and
lake
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
are highly
Total
429
1,199
571
981
1,592
4,772
600
459
501
1,611
853
4,024
982
818
719
1,405
302
832
1,341
251
6,650
527
854
765
2,146
553
599
852
1,011
2,462
970
1,235
743
669
975
294
4,886
56
54
314
458
882
173
432
224
604
229
495
150
603
2,910
29,285
urbanized
  no soils  data available.
**Alluvial  soils are included in this textural  class; areas are in parenthesis.
 +Marshes are  included in the textural class; areas are in parenthesis.
                                                                   IV-4

-------



12A
12B
12C
12D
Sub total

108
IOC
10D
Sub total


7C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
Sub total
HA
11C
Sub total
9
8A
SB
Sub total

6B
6C

6E
6F
Sub total



4D
Sub total




3E
3F
3G

Sub total
Total

a^lauf^





429
1,19°
571
981
1,592
4,772

459
501
1,611
854
4,025
981

718
1,406
301
832
1,343
251
6,652
527
765
2,144
554
599
852
2,462
970
1,235
743

975
293
4,885
56
54
314
458
882
173
432

604
229
495
151
602
2,910
29,286




Area**


270
676
316
631
853
2,746
183
71
279
668
455
1,656
167

85
204
130
204
348
25
1,457
241
353
958
82
101
295
832
61
238
107
148
358
118
1,030
0
1
8
70
79
22
11
13
67
32
36
1
26
208
9,048




(ha) of


127
343
198
278
604
1,550
318
289
194
572
340
1,713
52
33
58
1,01
14
49
63
179
3,909
242
292
906
277
389
352
1, 137
571
568
383
331
506
137
2,496
27
53
282
344
706
93
335
126
365
87
384
65
476
1,931
14,625




soils wi


27
123
47
71
115
383
48
33
23
191
51
346
120
66
46
129
18
63
200
9
651
29
109
235
16
26
106
191
139
104
190
110
65
30
638
1
0
0
14
15
47
6
23
4
13
22
0
10
130
2,605




th slope


4
35
2
1
18
60
0
5
5
119
5
134
9
3
0
13
5
12
33
0
75
5
11
29
1
1
5
12
6
1
10
13
15
4
49
0
0
0
1
1
5
2
0
5
0
7
0
0
19
380




(%) of


1
2
0
0
2
5
1
0
0
31
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43



lals



7
21
19
10
140
197
12
6
53
41
52
164
150
56
0
43
0
47
126
13
435
0
9
0
177
50
77
165
56
102
15
10
5
0
188
28
0
0
20
48
0
40
8
140
78
46
85
82
479
1,853




Area (ha)


347
994
418
702
1,190
3,651
453
449
395
1,369
717
3,383
831
719
714
1,264
298
725
1,185
238
5,974
456
567
1,838
371
549
775
2,257
906
1,034
724
605
699
197
4,165
28
54
314
418
814
173
392
216
464
151
448
66
520
2,430
24,883







75
183
134
269
262
923
135
4
53
200
82
474
0
42
0
99
3
59
30
0
233
71
198
306
6
0
0
40

9

5
26
9
52
0
0
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2,529





7 25 4**

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
4
0
4
4
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 5
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21




Area (ha)
hydrologto
B+

188
824
333
504
166
2,015
2
50
95
892
180
1 ,219
86
135
24

47
31
199
585
29
173
99
301
15
36
80
136
251
47
166
74

11 1
43
512
0

0
0
0
34

38
12
33
4
0
27
192
5,090




of soil
soil j,
(

125
120
80
172
985

445
234
330
503

678




938
5,013
376
576
440
1,392
350
423
f,72
74
1,836
852




3,369
2




139








18,332




„:;<«
D^

116
255
158
305
441

153
172
J39
171

217




206
1 ,054
122
103
226
451
189
140
100
134
374
71




1,004
28




0








5,843




IV-5

-------
soil, determines to a large extent the amount of water available for overland
flow during storm events.   Generally,  fine-textured soils exhibit lower
permeability than coarse-textured soils.   Most of the soils in the subwater-
sheds have low permeability (2.0 to 6.4 cm/hr) in their A horizons.   Soils
with very low permeability (0.5 to 2.0 cm/hr) and moderate to high permea-
bility (> 6.4 cm/hr) are not widespread.

     Soils in the subwatersheds were classified into hydrologic groups as
defined earlier ( Part  III) .  Group C soils are dominant in most of the
subwatersheds followed in order of importance by Group D soils (Table IV-2).
Soils in these groups have high runoff potential because of low infiltration
rate, low permeability and poor internal drainage.
                                  Land Use
     The Menomonee River Watershed features a variety of land uses.  Aggre-
gation into 14 land use categories by subwatersheds were made for the 1975
SEWRPC land use inventory (Table IV-3).   Land development occurs in almost
all. of the subwatersheds although the degree of development is more pronounc-
ed in several upper subwatersheds.  Row croplands are found mostly in the
upper subwatersheds.  Generally, the lower subwatersheds are highly urbanized
while the upper ones are essentially rural.  Greater changes in land use
would be expected in the upper subwatersheds due to urbanization brought
about by increasing population pressure.

     The kinds and amounts of land-derived pollutants depend on the land use
as affected by man's activities, degree of imperviousness, soil texture,
degree of erodibility and slope.  While slope and soil texture are the
predominant factors in rural subwatersheds, the main factor governing inputs
from urban and urbanizing subwatersheds is likely to be degree of impervious-
ness of the land surface.  The degree of imperviousness associated with the
subwatersheds ranges from 2 to 70% (Table IV-3).  More impervious areas are
located in the lower subwatersheds which is indicative of the variation in
extent of urban development in the Watershed as a whole.


                           Soil Erosion Potential
     An analysis was made by SEWRPC (2) to identify the spatial variation of
erosion potential in the Menomonee River Watershed using the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) as the basic analytical tool.  The USLE (3) predicts
primarily long-term average annual soil erosion potential from a parcel of
land having a given combination of the various natural and man-made features
and is limited to the erosion caused by rainfall in rill and inter-rill
areas.  It does not necessarily predict the amount of soil and other parti-
culate matter moving from the land surface to the receiving waters.  The
USLE was applied within the context of the Land DMS.

     The USLE and definition of the various terms within the equation are

                                     IV-6

-------
,se categories (1975) in the 48


No. Area
12A
12B 1,
12C
12D
12E 1,
10A
10B
IOC
10D 1,
10E
A
B
c
D 1,
E
F
G 1,
K
11A
113
lie
9
8A
8B
8C 1,
6A
6B 1.
6C
6D
6E
6F
4A
46
4C
4D
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
3G
3H
5
2
1A 1,
IB
19
Total 34,
*Land use
resident

, ha
429
200
571
981
592
599
459
502
610
853
981
820
718
406
301
832
343
251
527
852
765
555
599
853
Oil
970
323
744
669
974
294
545
752
707
799
527
940
225
605
230
496
151
642
175
182
143
389
305
397
al.

1
0 4
4.3
0.6
0
0
0 2
1.1
0.1
1.8
0
3.1
5.9
0
1.1
2.7
1.1
2.7
0.2
0
0
0
3.4
0.1
1.3
2. 2
2.0
4.5
0.5
5.1
0
0.3
4.0
2.5
0.1
0
0.2
1 3
0
15
7 9
3.0
0 2
8.1
0
0
17
a 3
5.0
2.6
gories are:

2
3.3
1.8
2 4
0.7
4.0
4.6
3.1
1. 1
0.2
5.7
5.9
3.1
3 2
8.2
6.6
4.9
8.3
1.2
0.2
1.3
15
2.0
7.8
9.8
8.9
15
6.9
1.0
8.3
4.3
11
9.1
5.5
6.4
5.3
4.5
20
24
34
17
85
15
5.6
7.2
25
18
12
7 3
1-indust
ity resi
1 ?-feafi

3
0
0
0
0
0
5 9
2.7
2.2
0.8
8.0
2.7
0
0
3.5
0
2 4
0
0
0
0
1.6
7.7
0
0
4.1
5.7
0
0
0
0
7.0
0.4
0
2 7
0
0.2
4.7
2. 1
7.9
1.9
0
1 2
0
0
3.8
5.9
0
1.8

dentia

4
6.7
0
0
0
2.0
1.8
0
0.1
0
0
0.4
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
4 5
0
0.2
0
6.8
2.9
2.9
1.9
2.9
2.6
1.8
1. 3
0
0
5.4
2.3
11
5.1
4.1
5.0
8.4
0.5
3 7
9.1
4.4
4.4
0.4
3 3
2.3
5.5
2.5
1.9


5
8.7
9 6
3.5
4.3
37
36
9.6
!2
14
18
6.8
48
56
28
24
8.3
65
2.4
7.6
12
41
36
13
4.3
47
41
58
53
45
25
47
69
67
49
42
69
23
26
11
32
8 6
32
87
77
33
40
65
29

1, 6-low density r
13-landfill and d

6
0.7
1.9
1 5
1.4
0 2
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
0.6
1.3
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.9
1.5
0
2 5
1 4
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.9
1.0
0
0
0.1
0.4
0.3
0. 3
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.7
eeway (othe
esidential,
mos. 14-wa
se* di
7
7 8
1 4
0.3
0 4
4.4
1 9
1 8
5 9
1.7
5.0
1.5
6.7
6.5
3.0
4 9
6 5
4 6
0.2
2.7
2.1
3.9
.5
8
2
.0
8
7
.9
5.8
0.1
0.2
0.4
2 5
5 2
0.1
0 3
0.8
1.4
0.4
2.4
0
1 8
2 0
0 2
0
0.2
1.1
3.1
r roads
7-land
ter are
tribu
8
17
31
45
31
1.3
15
31
19
37
8.9
18
9.0
5.1
5.5
21
28
0 1
68
33
39
0.2
2 6
14
26
0
0
0
0
3 0
0
0
0
0
1 9
1.5
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
are p
as (la
-ion *
9
48
38
32
30
25
25
32
26
40
51
28
19
41
37
32
16
18
38
31
24
40
45
28
30
26
20
24
26
50
26
16
13
25
43
19
39
30
33
33
1.5
37
5.3
13
18
18
13
29
roportiona
developme
nd use cat

10
2.6
9 4
12
24
1 3
4.5
13
8.5
7.0
2.8
2.6
3.6
5.9
3.9
8.9
0.4
6.2
10
12
0.4
3 1
5.5
13
0.4
0.8
6.3
4.4
7.4
10
0
0
0
1.7
2.1
0
2.5
1 1
0 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.7
tely distri

11
0.4
4.8
3 2
8 6
24
0.3
5.3
11
2 2
0.8
0.7
5.0
0
0.4
4.1
1.3
1.5
*f .0
0'.8
0.1
0.6
2.9
6.9
0
1.0
1.0
6.3
4.5
10
0
0
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 1
>uted a
rops, 9
descri

12
0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0 1
0
0 8
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
nong tti
ed in

13
0
0
0
0
0
0 2
0
0
0
0
? 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
0
1 6
0
3.8
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 6
0
0
0.1
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.2
0.4
0 3
e other Ian
e and small
Table III-5

14
4 0
0 2
0 4
0
0
0.6
1 0
0
0 5
0 1
1 7
0.6
0
0 3
0.8
0.2
0 1
0
0.2
1 5
0
0.4
0.5
0
0 4
0 1
0 6
0 1
0 1
0.2
0
0
0 3
0.1
0 1
} 7
0.7
1 8
0 6
1 3
0.6
0
0 7
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0 4
d uses),
Impervio
Total
17
7
8
2
2
23
28
7
g
6
23
11
17
18
24
12
11
34
5
5
3
42
26
13
12
41
39
23
14
21
10
51
48
52
32
46
51
47
51
46
46
21
47
55
56
70
59
56
24
4-hieh dens
10-forested
(1)

Connected
6
1
1
1
1
12
2
1
2
11
1
1
1
7
1
1
17
1
2

27
10
8
1
J7
12
1

1
1
33
30
32
20
32
30
33
18
36
30
1]
30
33
34
50
41
36
11
ty
Und
                                            IV-7

-------
as follows:

          E=AxRxKxLSxCxP

where:

          E = soil loss by water erosion in rill and inter-rill areas
              (Tonnes/ha/yr)•

          A = area (ha).

          R = a rainfall factor that accounts for the erosive forces of
              rainfall and runoff [El (erodibility index) units/yr].

          K = soil erodibility factor that reflects the physical and
              chemical properties of a particular soil (Tonnes/ha/EI unit).

         LS - slope-length factor that reflects the effects of length and
              steepness of the land surface (dimensionless).

          C = a cropping-management factor that reflects the influence of
              vegetation, mulch and the soil surface (dimensionless).

          P = erosion control practice  factor that is similar to the
              cropping-management factor but accounts for practices
              superimposed on the land surface such as contouring, terracing,
              compacting, sediment basins, and control structures (dimension-
              less) .

     Analysis of erosion potential by subwatersheds indicates high variability
of erosion rate in the Watershed as a whole (Table IV-4).  Based on area, most
of the soils in the subwatersheds have low erosion potential (< 4.5
Tonnes/ha/yr).  However, considerable soil areas have high erosion potential
(> 4.5 Tonnes/ha/yr) particularly in the upper subwatersheds.  The unit
erosion potential ranges from 0.41 to 9.13 Tonnes/ha/yr; a variation of over
20 times for the 48 subwatersheds.

     An examination of the terms of the USLE reveals that the unit erosion
potential is determined largely by the soil erodibility factor (K), the slope-
length factor (LS) and the cropping-management factor (C).  The area-weighted
values of these parameters are given in Table IV-4.  Area weighted values  for
the K factor for the 48 subwatersheds range from 0.19 to 0.48 (maximum to
minimum ratio is 2.5), the LS factor values range from 0.326 to 0.885
(ratio 2.7) and C factor from 0.011 to 0.145 (ratio 13).  Considering the
range in values of these factors it is likely that the cropping-management
factor is the primary determinant of variations in unit potential erosion,
followed in order of importance by the erodibility and slope-length factors.

     The cropping-management factor is closely related to land uses  (2).
The highest cropping-management factors are associated with land uses such
as agriculture (0.08), land fills and dumps (1.00), extractive areas (1.00),
and land under development  (1.00).  All other land uses have  cropping

                                     IV-8

-------


Subwatershed*





Sub
Sub
Sub
Sub

Sub
Sub
Sub

Sub
12A
12B
12C
12D
12E
total or mean
10A
10B
IOC
10D
10E
total or mean
7A
7B
7C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
total or mean
11A
11B
11C
total or mean
9
8A
SB
8C
total or mean
6A
6B
6C
6D
6E
6F
total or mean
4A
4B
4C
4D
total or mean
3A
3B
3C
3D
3E
3F
30
3H
total or mean
Total or mean

Area, ha
429
1,199
571
981
1,592
4,772
600
459
501
1,611
854
4,025
981
820
718
1,406
301
832
1,343
251
6,652
527
852
765
2,U4
554
599
852
1,011
2,462
970
1,235
743
669
975
293
4,885
56
54
314
458
882
173
432
224
604
229
495
151
602
2,910
29,286

Area (ha!
0-4.5
325
793
441
722
918
3,199
463
301
322
1,012
498
2,596
631
524
373
940
221
438
664
208
3,999
298
489
451
1,238
515
421
453
642
1,516
882
1,112
625
512
796
266
4,193
56
52
277
328
713
169
417
210
597
223
464
150
600
2,830
20, 799
1 of soils


76
272
95
194
457
1,094
60
92
118
317
225
812
156
172
190
201
43
234
407
6
1,409
173
212
151
536
11
65
248
268
581
30
32
18
39
75
8
202
0
0
6
29
35
2
7
8
1
2
7
0
0
27
4,707
itersheds in
with erosion


21
68
15
43
149
296
25
35
38
95
71
264
100
59
72
80
20
94
134
3
562
36
61
79
176
5
19
68
46
133
9
15
23
24
25
9
103
0
0
3
17
20
1
4
1
1
1
8
0
0
16
1,575
the Menomonee River Watershed
potential (Tonnes/ha
13.5-18
2
35
11
14
35
97
10
7
12
54
19
102
36
20
23
30
9
29
51
5
203
15
31
33
79
2
9
35
21
65
12
14
15
17
16
3
77
0
1
3
20
24
1
2
1
1
1
3
0
0
9
658
18-25
2
8
4
4
16
34
10
16
1
30
16
73
12
20
11
26
4
13
55
5
146
4
17
19
40
5
16
16
19
51
14
13
18
13
16
1
75
0
0
7
27
34
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
9
467
/yr) of:
>25
3
23
5
4
17
52
32
8
10
103
25
178
46
25
49
129
4
24
32
24
333
1
42
32
75
15
69
32
15
116
23
49
44
63
50
6
235
0
1
18
37
56
0
2
3
3
1
9
1
0
19
1,079


Erosion potential
Tonnes/
1,334
6,148
1,906
3,396
7,861
20,645
3,359
2,047
2,384
13,659
5,038
26,487
6,946
4,323
5 187
11,246
1,188
5,098
8,683
1,636
44,307
2,418
7,775
5,223
15,416
1,355
5,371
6,516
4,794
16,681
2,533
4,844
4,467
5,689
4,516
770
22,809
23
96
1,304
3,074
4,497
257
498
386
437
210
1,104
79
473
3,444
1^5,641
Tonnes/
ha/yr
3.10
5.12
3.34
3.46
4.94
4.32
5.60
4.47
4.75
8.48
5.90
6.58
7.08
5.27
7.22
8.00
3.94
6.13
6.47
6.52
6.66
4.60
9.12
6.83
7.19
2.45
8.98
7.65
4.75
6.78
2.60
3.92
6.01
8.50
4.64
2.62
4 67
0.40
1 78
4.14
6.71
5.09
1.48
1.15
1.72
0.72
0.91
2.23
0.52
0.78
1.18
5.31
Area-weighted parE
K
0.33
0.37
0.30
0.34
0.39
0.36
0.35
0.39
0.42
0.34
0.40
0.37
0.44
0.36
0.48
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.43
0.44
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.31
0. 39
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.37
0.32
0.43
0.40
0.35
0.27
0.36
0.24
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.38
0.33
0.34
0.26
0 43
0.19
0.41
0.37
0.39
LS
0.508
0.599
0.539
0 505
0.560
0.551
0.569
0.619
0.517
0.696
0.527
0.610
0.673
0.554
0.692
0.720
0.608
0.612
0.694
0.641
0.663
0.522
0.608
0.616
0.589
0.459
0.572
0.621
0.480
0.551
0.692
0.531
0.885
0.713
0.586
0.621
0.658
0.389
0.766
0.688
0.642
0.650
0.872
0.616
0.584
0.491
0.459
0.626
0.326
0.574
0.568
0.608
uneters**
C
0.063
0.095
0.069
0.069
0.064
0.073
0.068
0.052
0.072
0.120
0.077
0.089
0.073
0.145
0.083
0.091
0.049
0.075
0.069
0.065
0.085
0.068
0.110
0.077
0.088
0.066
0.118
0.092
0.077
0.092
0.072
0.049
0.062
0.129
0.072
0.033
0.056
0.011
0.015
0.061
0.107
0 079
0.018
0.013
0 023
0.014
0.021
0.024
0 012
0.011
0.016
0.072
 *Subwatersheds 1A,  IB,  2,  5, 19 and portions  of  3A,  3B, 3H, 4A, 4B,  4C, AD and 6B with an aggregate area of 5,983 ha  are highly urbanized;  no
  soils data available.
**K is  erodibility factor;  LS  is slope-length factor; C is  cropping factor.
                                                                IV-9

-------
management factors of 0.01 or less.  It is apparent that land uses associated
with high C values have high erosion potential.

     Subwatersheds 11B, 8A, 6D, 10D, 7D and 8B have the highest unit erosion
potential.  The high erosion rates in these subwatersheds are generally
associated with agriculture and/or land under development (Table IV-3).
                                    IV-10

-------
                         REFERENCES - IV
1.   Simsiman, G.  V.,  J.  Goodrich-Mahoney,  G.  Chesters and
    R. Bannerman.   Land Use, Population and Physical Characteristics
    of the Menomonee  River Watershed.   Part III :  Description of
    the Watershed.   Final Report of the Menomonee River Pilot
    Watershed Study,  Vol. 2, U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  1979,

2.   Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.   Spatial
    Variations of Erosion Potential in the Menomonee River Watershed
    as Determined by  the Universal Soil Loss Equation.   SEWRPC Staff
    Memorandum,  1977.

3.   Wischmeier,  W.  H.   Use and Misuse  of the Universal  Soil Loss
    Equation.  J.  Soil Water Conserv.  31 (l):5-9, 1976.
                                IV-11

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/4-79-029-B
                              2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Land  Use, Population and  Physical Characteristics of
 the Menomonee River Watershed - Volume 2
             5. REPORT DATE
              December  1979
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(siQ  y  Simsiman
S.G.  Walesn, F. Scarpace,  B.  Quirk, R. Meridith,
R.   Frantoni, J. Goodrich-Mahoney, R. Bannerman
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

 Wisconsin Department of  Natural  Resources
 P.O.  Box 450
 Madison, Wisconsin  53701
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              A42B2A
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
              R005142
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
Great Lakes National  Program Office
536  South Clark Street,  Room 932
Chicago, Illinois   60605
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              Final  Report 1974-1978
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
              USEPA-GLNP
15. SUPPLEMENTARY N9TES
University of Wisconsin  System Water Resources  Center and the  Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional  Planning Commission
16. ABSTRACT
 The Menomonee River  Watershed is described  in  order to establish  a  factual
 base upon which to draw  conclusions concerning the interactions of  the ecosystem
 and the impact of water  quality.  The description includes natural  and cultural
 features such as population, land use, climate,  physiography  and  geology, soils
 and water storage areas.   Also included  in  the description are  the  characteristics
 and management practices  existing in the  drainage areas of the  mainstream and
 predominantly single land use monitoring  sites.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COS AT I Field/Group
  Land data
  Water quality
  Water pollution
  Nonpoint source
  Remote sensing
  Hydro!ogical model
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Document is available to the public
  through the National  Technical Information
  Service (NTIS),  Springfield, VA 22161
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                124
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                                              U. S  Government Printing Office  1981  750-801

-------