INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
MENOMONEE RIVER
PILOT WATERSHED STUDY
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
COOPERATING AGENCIES
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
JOHN G, KONRAD
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
WATER RESOURCES CENTER
GORDON CHESTERS
*
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
KURT W. BAUER
Sponsored by
INTERNATIONAL JOI'NT COMMISSION
POLLUTION FROM LAND USE
ACTIVITIES REFERENCE GROUP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1975
-------
City of Milwaukee Industrial Complex
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Photograph of City of Milwaukee Industrial Complex ............... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES [[[ iv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. v
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1
II. OBJECTIVES ____ , ............................................ 8
III. PROGRESS OF STUDY (July 1974 to January 1975) .............. 9
A. WATER QUALITY: Monitoring of the Menomonee River
Watershed System ..................................... 9
Work Unit 100-225 (WDNR) Water Quality Parameters .. 9
Work Unit 100-325 (SEWRPC) Hydrologic-Hydraulic
Parameters ....................................... 9
Work Unit 325-350 (WDNR) Selection of Monitoring
Stations ......................................... 14
Work Unit 350-375 (WDNR-USGS) Installation of River
Network Sampling Stations ........................ 16
Work Units 225-250, 250-275, 275-280 (WDNR)
Laboratory Analysis .............................. 22
Work Unit 375-275 (WDNR) Sampling Activities ....... 22
B. LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED:
Sources and Behavior of Pollutants ................... 27
Work Unit 100-425 (SEWRPC) Selection of Land
Parameters ....................................... 27
Work Unit 425-450 (SEWRPC) Inventory of Land Use ... 29
Work Unit 450-475 (UW-WRC) Specific Land Use Studies 31
Work Unit 100-790 (UW-WRC) Remote Sensed and
Ancillary Data Compilation ....................... 37
C. LAND USE-WATER QUALITY PREDICTION: Modeling of Menomonee
River Watershed System ................................ 38
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED WORK ........................ 38
BASIC OUTLINE OF THE MODEL COMPONENTS ................... 43
Component I - Statistical and Time Series Analysis
-------
Ill
TABLE OF .CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
Statistical subroutine 4-3
Correlation subroutine 4-3
Time series analysis subroutine 4-6
Component II - Overland-flow Model 46
Quantity subroutine 4-6
Quality subroutine 48
Models of Runoff Presently in Use 52
Component III - River Transport Model 52
Quantity subroutine 54
Quality subroutine 55
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL FOR MENOMONEE RIVER PROGRAM 59
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES: Activities in Support of the
Study Obj ectives 63
Work Units 500-850 and 550-875 (UW-WRC): Data Storage
Processing and Dissemination 63
REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX 71
-------
IV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1 Organizational Chart for the Menomonee River Program .... 4
2 Location of Menomonee River Watershed 5
3 Menomonee River Watershed 6
4 Overall Study Plan 10
5 Study Plan for Objective A 11
6 Location of Monitoring Stations 17
7 Menomonee River Station No. 673001 Located in an Area
of Rural Land Use 19
8 Menomonee River Station No. 413005 Located in an Area
of Urban Land Use 19
9 Schoonmaker Creek Station No. 413010 Located in an
Older Residential Area 20
10 Honey Creek at Confluence with the Menomonee River Near
Station No. 413006 20
11 Automatic Water Sampler (left), Continuous Electronic
Senser Unit (center) and Flow Gauge (right) 21
12 Continuous Electronic Sensor Including Probe Unit,
Surface Unit, Scanner and Chart Recorder 21
13 Relationship between Stream Flow and Loadings of 3
Selected Parameters at the 70th St. Station, Menomonee
River 23
14 Study Plan for Objective B 28
15 Locations of Tentative Sites for the Specific Land Use
Studies 35
16 Units of the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Participating in the Specific Land-Use Studies 36
17 Study Plan for Objective C 39
18 Organizational Structure for the Coordination of
Modeling Activities with Other Task C Activities 40
19 Components of the Modeling System 42
20 The Data Matrix from Monitoring Work Units 44
21 Components of the STSAM 45
22 Time Record of Total Organic Carbon Variation 47
23 Power Spectrum 47
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure No. Page No.
24- Representation of the Overland Flow Model 49
25 Components of the Overland Flow Model -. 51
26 Representation of the River System (River Transport
Model) 53
27 Discretized Stream System (after Water Resources
Engineers, Inc.) 56
28 Components of the River Transport Model 58
29 CPM Diagram of Land-Use/Water Quality Modeling Activities 60
30 Bar Chart for Land-Use/Water Quality Modeling Activities. 61
31 Communication System for Computer Activities 62
32 Study Plan for Data Evaluation and Storage 64
33 A Cell: The Basic Areal Unit in the Land Data Management
System 66
34 Computer System Required to Support the Data Management
System 67
-------
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 Selected water quality parameters 12
2 Governmental units and agencies and private concerns
permitting construction and operation of monitoring
stations in the Menomonee River watershed 15
3 Selection of monitoring stations for the Menomonee River
pilot watershed study 18
4 Summary of physical and chemical data for water samples
from harbor and Menomonee River grab sample stations,
July-November 1974 25
5 Survey of toxic organic compounds at 8 selected stations
on the Menomonee River, October 1974 26
6 List of land data types available for the Menomonee River
watershed 30
7 Detailed land use in the Menomonee River watershed, 1970 . 32
8 Tentative locations for the specific land use studies .... 34
Appendix Tables
1 Summary of nutrient data at 70th Street site (Station No.
413005) on Menomonee River, February 1973-
October 1974 72
2 Summary of physical data at 70th Street site on Menomonee
River, February 1973-October 1974 73
3 Summary of metals data at 70th Street site on Menomonee
River, February 1973-October 1974 74
4 Summary of nutrient data at 124th Street site (Station No.
683001) on Menomonee River, February 1973-October 1974.. 75
5 Summary of physical data at 124th Street site on
Menomonee River, February 1973-October 1974 76
6 Summary of metals data at 124th Street site on Menomonee
River, February 1973-October 1974 77
7 Summary of nutrient data at Villard Avenue extended site
on the Little Menomonee River, February 1973-October
1974 78
8 Summary of physical data at Villard Avenue extended site
on the Little Menomonee River, February 1973-October
1974 79
9 Summary of metals data at Villard Avenue extended site on
Little Menomonee River, February 1973-October 1974 80
-------
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
MENOMONEE RIVER PILOT WATERSHED STUDY
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
January 1975
I. INTRODUCTION
Concern for the effects of various land use activities on Great
Lakes water quality has prompted the governments of the United States
and Canada, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of April 15,
1972, to direct the International Joint Commission to conduct studies of
the impact of land use activities on the water quality of the Great Lakes
Basin and to recommend remedial measures for maintaining or improving
Great Lakes water quality.
To effect this undertaking, the International Joint Commission,
through the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, established the International
Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (Pollution
from Land Use Activities Reference Group - PLUARG). The Reference Group
developed a study program which consisted of four major tasks. Task A is
devoted to the collection and assessment of management and research infor-
mation and, in its later stages, to the critical analysis of alternative
recommendations. Task B requires the preparation of a land use inventory
and an analysis of trends in land use patterns and practices with time.
Task C comprises a detailed survey of selected watersheds to determine the
sources of pollutants, their relative significance and the assessment of
the degree of transmission of pollutants to boundary waters. Task D is
the in-lake approach to assessing the impacts of materials on the quality
of the boundary waters and establishing the significance of future altern-
ative management schemes.
The Task C portion of the Detailed Study Plan includes intense
-------
investigations of six watersheds in Canada and the United States which
are representative of the full range of urban and rural land uses found
in the Great Lakes Basin. A Technical Committee and Task C Subgroup have
been established by the PLUARG and assigned primary responsibility for
developing and conducting the pilot watershed studies. The Menomonee River
watershed has been selected for the study of the effects of urban-residential
land uses undergoing rapid change. Interfacing of Task C - Task D activi-
ties is to be accomplished by the Task C Technical Committee with inputs
from the PLUARG, the pilot watershed studies and the Task D Subgroup and
Technical Committee. Thus, the output of the Task C pilot watershed studies
will be consistent with the objectives and activities of Task D. Likewise,
the land use inventory developed by Task B will form the basis for extrapola-
tion of data obtained under the pilot watershed program to the total Great
Lakes Basin. Coordinating responsibilities for this activity will lie with
the Task C Technical Committee.
Although it is not an objective of the Menomonee River pilot water-
shed program to develop an analytical quality control program for the
entire Task C activities, it should be re-emphasized that maximum effective-
ness of the Task C (and eventually Task D) program will only be achieved
if the collected data is analytically compatible between watersheds. It
is, therefore, urged that the Reference Group make the necessary arrange-
ments to develop an analytical quality control program at the earliest
opportunity.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the University
of Wisconsin System through the Water Resources Center (UW-WRC) and the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) serve as the
lead agencies or organizations responsible for participating with the Task
C Technical Committee in the planning and conduct of the intensive study
of land-use/water quality relations in the Menomonee River watershed.
The principal functions of these agencies are:
a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: The WDNR has
-------
administrative responsibility for the total study. This includes
coordination of activities associated with the Menoraonee River
Study and submission of reports to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the PLUARG. The WDNR also provides labora-
tory support for the monitoring program conducted in the Menomonee
River Basin.
b. University of Wisconsin System: The UW, through the Water
Resources Center, is conducting special studies of selected land
use activities and providing interpretation and assessment of
monitoring data through development of land use-water quality
models.
c. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission: The
SEWRPC is providing background inventories on land use activities
and projecting land use patterns from its current Menomonee River
planning program and developing a computer file of all data and
information applicable to the study.
In addition to these agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey installed
and is maintaining gauging and sampling stations at twelve locations in
the Basin.
The organizational structure of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study is presented in Fig. 1.
The Menomonee River watershed (352 km2 or 136 mile2) is located in
the southeastern corner of Wisconsin and discharges to Lake Michigan at the
City of Milwaukee (Figs. 2 and 3). This highly urbanized watershed encom-
passes all or parts of four counties and 17 cities, villages and towns and
currently contains a resident population of ~ 400,000 persons (1,135 persons/
km2 or 2,940 persons/mile2). Existing urban land uses range from an intensely
developed commercial-industrial complex in the lower quarter of the water-
shed to low to medium density residential areas in the center half of the
watershed, while the upper quarter is in the process of being converted
from rural to urban land use, as reflected by scattered urban development.
-------
INTERNATIONAL
JOINT COMMISSION
GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY
BOARD
IJC REGIONAL
OFFICE, WINDSOR
POLLUTION FROM LAND
USE ACTIVITIES
REFERENCE GROUP
TASK C SUBGROUP
CO-CHAIRMEN
J. Konrad
D. Jeffs
TASK C
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
TASK C
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHED STUDY
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
R. Chrlstensen
F. Sullivan
J. Konrad
Project Director
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Administration
STUDY COORDINATION
J. Konrad
G. Chesters
K. Bauer
UNIV. of WISCONSIN
WATER RESOURCES
CENTER
G. Chesters
WDNR
ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS
0. Williams
SEWRPC
S. Walesh
OTHER FEDERAL
and
STATE AGENCIES
Fig. 1 Organizational Chart for the Menomonee River Program
-------
«,««,75 „,, «, ft. >:•""" •;
;ic j, ^V; ••/
*.••.• '
i yt^.
^P f a*
•^ ?v?,o/
,..• . _
r\"~)~T T i i; T
—( . /»•. I'uiHt-, \\i. c :
•
Fig. 2 Location of Menomonee River Watershed.
-------
Fig. 3 Menomonee River Watershed.
-------
The irregular topography of the watershed results from the effects of
glaciation. Heterogeneous glacial drift covers the entire watershed and
the dominant soil types tend to be poorly drained. The long-term average
discharge from the watershed is 6,728 m3/hr (1.87 m3/sec) but flood flows
as high as 1,529,100 m3/hr (424.75 m3/sec) have been recorded. The
basin has a typical humid climate, with mild summers and cold winters.
The annual average temperature is 10°C (50°F) with mean daily temperatures
ranging from -6°C (21°F) in January to 22°C (71°F) in July. Annual aver-
age precipitation is 79 cm (31 inches) including 100 cm (40 inches) of
snow.
-------
-------
II. OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the Menomonee River watershed study is to
investigate the effects of land drainage on the pollutional input to Lake
Michigan and to develop a predictive capacity with respect to the sources,
forms and amounts of pollutants reaching Lake Michigan.
The specific objectives of the Menomonee River watershed study are:
A. To determine the levels and quantities of major and trace
constituents including, but not limited to, nutrients, pesticides
and sediments reaching or moving in flow systems likely to affect
the quality of Lake Michigan water.
B. To define the sources and evaluate the behavior of pollutants
from an urban land use setting with particular emphasis on the
impact of residential and industrial areas including utility
facilities, transportational, recreational, agricultural and
constructional activities associated with rapid urbanization.
C. To develop the predictive capability necessary to facilitate
extension of the findings from the Menomonee River watershed
study to other urban settings, leading to an eventual goal of
integrating pollutional inputs from urban sources to the entire
Great Lakes Basin.
Activities and decisions made in meeting the specific objectives of
the Menomonee River watershed study will be carried out in such a manner
as to effectively interface with objectives of Task D.
-------
-------
III. PROGRESS OF STUDY
(July 1974 to January 1975)
Although it is fully understood that each of the three sub-objectives
are completely interrelated, progress to date is discussed to parallel each
individual sub-objective as depicted in Fig. 4. The work units are identi-
fied by two or more numbers which delineate a particular activity. Each
of the work units is identified with one of the lead agencies, namely—
WDNR, UW-WRC and SEWRPC---solely for the purpose of indicating that the
particular agency will provide the leadership and major reporting respons-
ibilities for that work unit.
A. WATER QUALITY: Monitoring of the Menomonee River Watershed System
The position of the particular work units within the overall work
plan for section A is shown in Fig. 5.
Work Unit 100-225 (WDNR) Water Quality Parameters
The list of parameters adopted for the water quality studies includes
the basic "core" list recommended by the Task C Technical Committee for use
in all pilot watershed studies. Additional parameters have been selected
to fit the needs of the Menomonee River pilot watershed study. Table 1
summarizes the specific water quality and sediment parameters selected for
laboratory analysis; the group listings shown in the table correspond to
the field study time schedules described in the Work Plan (September 1974).
Work Unit 100-325 (SEWRPC): Hydrologic-Hydraulic Parameters
To evaluate water quality phenomena within the watershed hydrologic-
hydraulic data are needed to model the system. Basic hydrologic information
selected for the study includes parameters pertinent to the atmospheric phase
of the hydrologic cycle such as precipitation, temperature, solar radiation,
-------
10
°u
>4 W
fi
M
>
(j
5
H
H
3
I
!
. 1
v ^ M
>* tfi
g S
H H
S> L>
< <
3 b.
?
>«
H O
§H i
•
o
ta) K
*J w ^
5° ^
H S M
£3^
— Ys
. ^
Ul
ea
"P
w K
in -c
-J
sn.iiAHN amu.vtiairi
c
It!
-o
3
4J
CO
$-
O)
a
-------
11
SELECT
WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
. LABORATORY
FACILITIES
ORGANIZE AND
OPERATE
ANALYSIS
SELECT
HYDROLOGIC-
SAMPLING
ACTIVITIES
SELECT
HYDRAULIC
PARAMETERS
STATIONS
CONSTRUCT ASP
OPERATE
Fig. 5 Study Plan for Objective A
-------
12
Table 1 - Selected water quality parameters
Parameters determined
on water samples
Parameters determined on
water £ sediment samples
Parameters determined
on sediment samples
Group A
Organic nitrogen
Ammon ium-n itrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total filtered
phosphorus
Dissolved reactive
phosphate
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chloride
Total carbon
Dissolved carbon
Total suspended
solids
Turbidity
Group B
Total coliform
counts
Fecal coliform
counts
Fecal streptococci
counts
Group C (Inorganic)
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Arsenic
Selenium
Nickel
Cadmium
Mercury
Group C (Organic)
Phenolics
Cyanide
PCBs'
Phthalate
DDT
DDD
DDE
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Lindane
Heptachlor epoxide
Dieldrin
Methoxychlor
Group D
-'Sulfate
?SD is solved reactive
silicate
Iron
Aluminum
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sod ium
Potassium
Group E
Total nitrogen
Ammonium nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Reactive phosphate
Cation exchange
capacity
Amorphous minerals
Particle size
distribution
Total carbonates
pH
Organic matter
Suspended sediment
Group F
Clay
Silt
Sand
Mineralogy
^Parameter will not be measured on sediment samples.
-------
13
potential evaporation, wind, and relative humidity data; parameters related
to the surface water phase of the cycle such as streamflow, river stage,
soils and land slope data; and information descriptive of the groundwater
phase of the hydrologic cycle such as the vertical and horizontal extent
of the aquifers underlying the watershed and the quantity of water contained
within and moving through them. Basic hydraulic data selected includes
surface water information such as channel profiles, floodland cross sections,
roughness coefficients and hydraulic structure plans; and such groundwater
data as hydraulic conductivity values and potentiometric surface maps for
the shallow and deep aquifers underlying the watershed.
As a result of a parallel water resources planning program by SEWRPC,
an extensive amount of hydrologic-hydraulic data has been obtained recently
and although developed for the SEWRPC planning program, the data are now
available for use in the pilot watershed study. Surface water hydrologic
data collected by the end of 1974 included daily and instantaneous discharges
at the single U.S. Geological Survey continuous stream gauging station loca-
ted in the watershed and analyses of that data which have resulted in the
development of flow duration curves, instantaneous and other high-flow
discharge-frequency relations and low-flow discharge-frequency relations.
Annual instantaneous discharges at the three USGS partial record stations
in the watershed have also been obtained and analyzed. The watershed land
surface has been partitioned into 14 subwatersheds which have, in turn,
been further subdivided into 244 sub-basins. Hydrologic soil group and
land use data have been prepared for each of the 14 subwatersheds.
Surface water hydraulic data, now available for use in the pilot
watershed study, includes drawings of 170 bridges, culverts and dams on ~
116 km (72 miles) of stream system as well as channel floodplain cross
sections at a spacing of approximately 152 m (500 ft). Channel profiles
have been developed for the stream system and Manning roughness coefficients
have been assigned to the channel and floodplain areas.
-------
14
Work Unit 325-350 (WDNR) Selection of Monitoring Stations
As reported in the Work Plan, 12 stations were selected for the
installation of automatic water quality and sediment samplers with 11
associated automatic gauging stations (flow will not be measured at
station 4-13004).
Subsequent to selection of the sites, contacts were made with private
and public land owners at each site and with governmental agencies having
some form of jurisdiction over the sites. The objectives of the pilot water-
shed study were explained and a description of the sampling and monitoring
equipment and the protective structures as proposed for each site was pro-
vided. The affected private parties and governmental units and agencies
were asked to cooperate in the pilot watershed study by permitting the con-
struction of the protective structures and the installation and operation
of the equipment. The reaction to the request for cooperation was gen-
erally favorable and, as indicated in Table 2, three private concerns,
three cities, three villages, three county agencies and one school district
agreed to allow the temporary use of their land for the construction and
operation of monitoring stations. Contacts with the private parties and
with the governmental units and agencies were initiated in June 1974 and
permission was received for use of all 12 sites by early October 1974.
Grab sample stations (413012, 413013 and 413014) have been estab-
lished in the Milwaukee harbor area and a fourth site is being evaluated
in order to assess the effects of the confluence of the Menomonee and
Little Menomonee Rivers.
The selection of sampling sites was based primarily on the distri-
bution of the diverse urban and urbanizing land uses in the Menomonee River
watershed. The stations are located either downstream from mixed land use
activities, such as the transition from rural to urban areas, or are lo-
cated to characterize the runoff from areas of homogeneous land uses.
-------
-------
15
Table 2 - Governmental units and agencies and private concerns permitting
construction and operation of monitoring stations in the
Menomonee River watershed."
Station No. Location
Cooperators
413004
413009
113005
413006
413010
413007
683001
413008
413011
683002
463001
673001
Menomonee River above
27th St. at the Falk
Corporation
Combined sewer outfall
on Menomonee River at
Hawley Rd.
Menomonee River at
70th St. bridge
Honey Creek near
confluence with
Menomonee River
Schoonmaker Creek
at Vliet St.
Underwood Creek at
USH 45
Menomonee River at
124th St.
Little Menomonee at
Appleton Ave.
Noyes Creek at 91st St.
Menomonee River at
Pilgrim Rd.
Little Menomonee River
at Donges Bay Rd.
Menomonee River at
River Land Rd.
1. Falk Corporation
2. Milwaukee-Metropolitan
Sewerage Commissions
3. City of Milwaukee
1. City of Milwaukee
1. Milwaukee-Metropolitan
Sewerage Commissions
2. Milwaukee County Park Commission
3. City of Wauwatosa
1. Milwaukee-Metropolitan
Sewerage Commissions
2. Milwaukee County Park Commission
3. City of VJauwatosa
1. City of Wauwatosa
2. Washington Highlands
Homes Association
1. Milwaukee-Metropolitan
Sewerage Commissions
2. Milwaukee County Park Commission
3. City of Wauwatosa
1. Waukesha County Highway and
Transportation Commission
2. Village of Butler
1. Milwaukee-Metropolitan
Sewerage Commissions
2. Milwaukee County Park Commission
3. City of Milwaukee
1. City of Milwaukee
1. Village of Menomonee Falls
1. City of Mequon
2. Lembke Seed Farm
1. Village of Germantown
2. Germantown Joint School
District No. 1.
^Private concerns and governmental units and agencies listed in this table
are cooperating in the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study by permitting
the construction and operation of monitoring stations on land that they
own or otherwise have jurisdiction over.
-------
16
Figure 6 shows the location of the monitoring stations and Table 3
is a listing of the station locations and type with STORE! Primary Station
Numbers, together with a brief description of the land use activities to
be monitored at each station.
Figures 7 to 10 show the type of structures used to house the moni-
toring equipment and the general characteristics of the surrounding land-
scape at a few selected stations.
The transfer of materials from the atmosphere to the land surface as
dry fallout or in conjunction with precipitation will be monitored since
the atmosphere may be the principal source of some of the constituents
being transported in the streams. A basic air quality monitoring system
already exists in and near the watershed with the in-watershed portion of
that system consisting of four continuous air quality monitoring sites and
two sites at which only particulates are measured. A literature review of
air quality-water quality interrelationships has been initiated in order to
provide for the design of the air quality and meteorological monitoring
equipment needed to supplement the existing monitoring network.
Work Unit 350-375 (WDNR-USGS) Installation of River Network Sampling
Stations
Construction of facilities for housing the monitoring equipment was
begun in August 1974. This program component has been subcontracted to
the U.S. Geological Survey and includes the installation and maintenance
of 11 streamflow recording and 12 automatic water sampling devices. The
construction and equipment installation phase of the project has been
completed, including the placement of electronic probe-type sensor moni-
tors for measurement of pH, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), conductivity and
temperature at five stations, namely, Nos. 413004, 413005, 683001, 673001
and 413008. An example of the monitoring equipment at one station (Fig. 11)
and the various components of the probe-type sensor (Fig. 12) are shown.
Water sample collection will be regulated on a proportional flow basis and
-------
17
463001
413011
673001
413008
413010
683001
413007
413012
Scale
1 2
I I
41300
miles
Fig. 6 Location of Monitoring Stations.
-------
18
Table 3 - Selection of monitoring stations for the Menomonee
River pilot watershed study
Station No.
Location
Type*
Monitoring Activities
113012 Milwaukee Harbor at N. 1
Broadway (Hwy. 32) bridge
113013 Menomonee River at 2nd St. 1
(N. Plankinton) bridge
113011 Menomonee Rivar at N. 13th 1
St. bridge
113001 Menomonee River abovo 27th 2
St. at Talk Corporation
113009 Menomonee River at 3
Hawley Rd.
113005 Menomonee River at 70th 1
St. bridge
113006 Honey Creek 150 yards 1
above confluence with
Menomonee River along
Honey Creek Parkway Dr.
113010 Schoonmaker Creek at 3
Vliet St.
113007 Underwood Creek above 1
Hwy. 15 off North Ave.
6B3001 Menomonce River at 121th 1
St. (Hwy. M)
113008 Little Menomonee River at 1
Appleton Ave. (Hwy. 175)
113011 Noyes Creek at 91st St. 3
683002 Menomonee River at Pilgrim 1
Rd. (Kwy. YY)
163001 Little Menoifonee River at 1
Donges Bay Rd.
673001 Menomonee River at River 1
Lane Rd. (Hwy. F)
Estuary waters of Lake Michigan and the Menomonee
and Milwaukee Rivers
Last station on Menomonee River before confluence
with the Milwaukee. Monitors entire watershed
and local shipping activities
Industrial activities including railroad yards
and shipping
Industrial activities including railroad yards.
Combined and separate sewer systems
Located at combined sewer system outfall
Runoff from urban development, light industry and
expressway development
Monitor net effect of Honey Creek, a densely popu-
lated residential area
Monitor net effect of Schoonmaker Creek storrawater
runoff from an older residential area
Monitor net effect of Underwood Creek runoff from
a residential and light industrial developing area
Monitor the quality of the Upper Menomouee River
above the Town of Butler sewage treatment plant
and the confluence with the Menomonee River
Monitor effect of the rural to urban land use
transition above the confluence with the Menomonee
River
Monitor net effect of Neves Creek stormwater runoff
from a new residential area
Monitor the transition frorrj a rural to urban land
use
Monitor the transition from a rural to urban land
use
Monitor rural land usage (agriculture) with a new
residential lake and golf course development
*Station types are 1. automatic sampling Bnd continuous flew, ?, automatic sampling only,
3. storrawater station—automatic sampling and continuous flow dependent on flow conditions,
end 1. grab sample.
-------
19
Fig. 7 Menomonee River Station No
673001 Located In An Area
Of Rural Land Use.
Fig. 8 Menomonee River Station No,
413005 Located In An Area
Of Urban Land Use.
-------
20
Fig. 9 Schoonmaker Creek
413010 Located In
Residential Area.
Station No
An Older
Fig. 10 Honey Creek At Confluence
With The Menomonee River Near
Station No. 413006.
-------
21
Fig. 11 Automatic Water Sampler (left),
Electronic Sensor Unit (center)
Flow Gauge (right).
Conti nuous
and Stream
Fig. 12 Continuous Electronic Sensor Including
Probe Unit, Surface Unit, Scanner and
Chart Recorder.
-------
22
the flow recording and electronic probe-type sensors will operate contin-
uously. All monitoring units are currently undergoing calibration and
testing and are expected to be fully operational by February 1, 1975.
Work Units 225-250, 250-275, 275-280 (WDNR) Laboratory Analysis
Laboratory support for the river network monitoring activities will
be conducted by a cooperative agreement with the Laboratory Services
Section of the WDNR. This agreement was initiated in July 1974, concurrent
with the establishment of preliminary sampling stations in the Milwaukee
Harbor area. This arrangement with WDNR has been made for the duration of
the pilot watershed investigation. Laboratory analytical techniques will
follow the standard procedures recommended by the U.S. EPA Analytical
Methods Manual and by techniques selected by the Task C Technical Committee.
The adoption of standard techniques for the entire Task C program will
ensure data comparability and provide the greatest opportunity for inte-
gration of data on a Great Lakes Basin-wide scale.
Work Unit 375-275 (WDHR) Sampling Activities
In February 1973, the WDNR began collecting preliminary water quality
data from 3 stations in the Menomonee River Watershed (352 km2). The
70th St. (No. 413005) and 124th St. (No. 683001) stations located on the
main stem of the Menomonee River, and the Villard Ave. station on the
Little Menomonee River, receive drainage from 88%, 44% and 16% of the
watershed, respectively. Grab samples were taken at each site at approx-
imately biweekly intervals and were analyzed for 21 parameters including
nutrients, metals and various physical characteristics. Appendix 1
summarizes the data obtained at these sites.
Stream flow (meter3/second or cms) at the 70th St. station is com-
pared with the loading rates of three representative parameters in Fig. 13.
The highest loadings were observed during a 5-month period from late
winter through spring when flows reached their peak levels. An exception
-------
23
COPPER
NITRATE* NITRITE
DISSOLVED REACTIVE PHOSPHATE
May Sept
1973
May Sept Dec.
1974
Fig. 13 Relationship between Stream Flow and Loadings
of 3 Selected Parameters at the 70th St. Station,
Menomonee River.
-------
24
to this general rule was the relatively high loading of dissolved reactive
phosphate found in the fall of 1974 which may reflect, in part, the leach-
ing of nutrients from leaves which have fallen in or near the river system.
The monitoring program, begun in February 1973, was expanded in
November 1974 to include the automatic-type sampling stations listed in
Table 3. Grab sampling will be continued at biweekly intervals at these
sites until the automatic sampling equipment is ready for operation. At
this time, sampling activities will follow the schedule outlined in the
Menomonee River Work Plan (p. 22).
The Villard Ave. station was not selected for future monitoring
and sampling activities at this site were phased out in October 1974.
During July 1974 monitoring was begun at the 3 near-harbor stations
on the lower Menomonee River in order to investigate the Menomonee River-
Lake Michigan estuary interrelationships. In addition to in situ measure-
ments for pH, D.O., conductivity and temperature, grab samples have been
taken at biweekly intervals from 3 depths at each site and analyzed for
several parameters, including nutrients, chlorides and solids. A summary
of this data is presented in Table 4 and shows the change in characteristics
of the Menomonee River as it flows into the Milwaukee Harbor at the
Broadway St. station. The transition from predominantly Menomonee River
water at the 13th St. station to harbor water at the Broadway station is
marked by a general dilution of many constituents and improved conditions
in terms of the levels of dissolved oxygen. The significance of these
changes is the potential for changes in the forms and amounts of various
components entering Lake Michigan due to the mixing of waters of differ-
ing physical and chemical characteristics. Collection of samples from
these stations will continue according to the schedule outlined in the
Work Plan (p. 22).
The results of a single survey, in October 1974, for toxic organic
compounds are shown in Table 5. Samples were taken from 8 selected sites
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
26
Table 5 - Survey of toxic organic compounds at
8 selected stations on the Menomonee
River, October 1974
Limit of Detection,
Parameter Pg/1
DDT 0.02
ODD 0.01
DDE 0.01
Aldrin 0.005
Lindane 0.005
Dieldrin 0.01
Heptachlor 0.005
Heptachlor epoxide 0.005
Methoxychlor 0.02
PCB 0.05
Phthalate 0.5
3 stations showed concentrations in excess of
limit of detection:
413010 - Schoonmaker Creek—DDD = 0.02 pg/1
683002 - Menomonee River—Phthalate = 2.7 pg/1
413012 - Menomonee River—PCB = 0.12 pg/1
-------
-------
27
throughout the watershed and analyzed for the parameters listed. Only 3
sites showed toxic components at levels in excess of the limits of detec-
tion. Subsequent surveys for persistent organics will be conducted at
different times in an effort to locate source areas that may be related
to seasonal events.
The raw data from these preliminary investigations, as well as from
all future monitoring activities, will be stored on computer tapes and
will be abstracted in subsequent reports to provide easier access by all
IJC study participants.
B. LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: Sources and
Behavior of Pollutants
The position of the particular work units within the overall work
plan for section B is shown in Fig. 11.
Work Unit 100-125 (SEWRPC): Selection of Land Parameters
As indicated in the Work Plan, the results of literature reviews
coupled with the modeling experience of the watershed study participants
will result in the identification of a list of land use parameters for
which quantitative data are to be obtained for the watershed. The original
intent to concentrate on "land use" data has been expanded to encompass
the more comprehensive concept of "land" data which is defined as being
comprised of all those watershed characteristics having an areal extent.
For example, land data encompasses items such as land use, land cover,
soil type, civil division and existing sanitary sewer service areas.
Land data, as defined above, will have the following two principal
uses in the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed study:
1. Interpretation of water quality and quantity data acquired from
routine, long-term monitoring activities as well as that obtained
-------
28
SELECT
LAND USE
CONDUCT
INVENTORY _A 50^PECIFIC LAND . 4?5]
PARAMETERS \ J OF LAND USE 'i. J USE STUDIES
WATERSHED REMOTE SENSIKG
-W790
COMPARE
LAKD USE
Fig. 14 Study Plan for Objective B
-------
29
from special, short-term local studies; and
2. input to the predictive hydrologic-hydraulic-water quality models
to be developed for the pilot watershed study.
Table 6 summarizes types of land data that are available for the
Menomonee River watershed. This list of land data types has been prepared
to provide a framework from which an operational set of land data types
will be identified. Land data types included in the operational set will
be coded and placed in the Land Data Management System (Land DMS) that- has
been designed for the pilot watershed study as described under Work Unit
500-850 and 550-875.
The basic land use classification system to be used in the Land DMS
is that employed by the SEWRPC. This system utilizes nine general land
use categories, consisting of seven urban categories—1. residential, 2.
retail and service, 3. wholesale and storage, 4. manufacturing, 5. trans-
portation, communication and utilities, 6. government and institutional,
and 7. park and recreation; and two rural categories—1. agriculture and
related, and 2. other open space lands, swamps and water areas. Each of
these nine general categories is subidivided into two to 10 detailed land
uses resulting in a total of 41 detailed land use categories.
While this classification system employing 41 land use categories
will meet the needs of the land use-water quality model for the entire
Menomonee River watershed, the classification system may not be adequate
for special short-term research studies to be conducted during the course
of the project such as investigations of the characteristics and impact of
runoff from roadways or certain bulk storage areas on water quality. In
the case of the unique situations, supplemental land use classifications
may be required.
Work Unit 425-450 (SEWRPC): Inventory of Land Use
Aerial photographs of the Menomonee River watershed at a scale of
-------
30
Table 6 - List of land data types available for
the Menomonee River Watershed
Category
Datd Type
Location data
Land use
Soils data
Geologic and groundwater
data
Hydrologic data
Natural resource base
data—supplemental
Utilities dats
Demographic data
State plane coordinates
Lat I 1 ude- J ongi tude
UTrt coordinates
County
City, village, town
I' on ing
Ownership
Elevation
1963 » 1967, 1970 and 1975 land use
2000 planned land use
Special land use or cover
So 5 1 type
Slope
Degree of erosion
Hydrologic soil group
Other properties
Thickness of glacial drift
Elevation of surface of dolomite aquifer
EJevation of base of dolomite aquifer
Elevation of surfac1-"1 of sandstone aquifer
Elevation of potentioiretric surface of
dolomite and sand and gravel aquifer (1974)
Elevation of pctentiometric surface of
sandstone aquifer (1974)
Elevdl Ion of potrntitr..etric surface of
r>andstone aquifer (1980)
Hydraulic conductivity of the sandstone
aquifer
PerosJty of the nandstcne aquifer
Storage coeff icltint of the sandstone aquifer
Specific capacity of wells in the sandstone
aqua f er
Watershed
Bubwatershed
Suh- t-asin
ftcmftor ing station, directly tributary tc
Dry upland for eat
Kesic upland hardwood rorest
Flood plain hardwood forest
Trans I tioLcal swawp forr-st
Sw&rfipj, open mirah end brush march
ffjidlif" nabitat areas
Value r3tiTif,E for each of tne above
Exsst a HE sanitary sever- service arsa
Ex'sulnp septic syr^ci^i service area
Planned sanitary se^tr service area
Existing public wat^i' utility service
arS'i- -surf ace water
Existing puLlic vatcr utility service
area — groiuidwater
ExistiT-p private w^ter utility service
areo--grGundwril'er
Existing irdividaal private wells
Planned public v/t/ter utility service
3 re^-~ surface water
Planned public wator utility service
srea-- ground water
FJJectric service
Gas service
Storni vfater system
Sanitary bewor-trunk sewor larger than
specified diameter
ger than specified diameter'
Water main lar,
1900 population
I960 population
1970 population
1980 population forecast
1990 population forecast
3000 population forecast
-------
31
1» = 400' as obtained by the SEWRPC in 1963, 1967 and 1970 and scheduled
for the spring of 1975 constitute the primary source data for the inventory
and collation of land use data. By means of photo interpretation, supple-
mented with on-site checks, 41 land use categories have been identified
on the 1963, 1967 and 1970 aerial photographs. A consistent but more
detailed set of land use categories will be delineated on 1975 aerial
photographs. The land uses have been or will be delineated on overlays
to the aerial photographs. These overlays will be subdivided into small
cells, and the coordinates and land use of each cell will be determined
prior to entering the land use data into the Land DMS.
Work Unit 450-475 (UW-WRC) Specific Land Use Studies
Activities in this work unit are divided in two parts: 1. selection
of study areas and 2. selection of University of Wisconsin disciplinary
research units.
Study area selection
The main objective of the specific land use studies is to determine
the types and amounts of major pollutants originating from various land
use activities in a rapidly urbanizing watershed. To meet this objective
it is necessary that each area selected consist of homogeneous and/or
predominant land use activity. Other criteria of selection are drainage
pattern, accessibility of sampling site, feasibility of sampling, absence
of point sources of pollution, and security of sampling equipment from
vandalism.
Land use area selection is based on the 1970 SEWRPC land use inven-
tory. In this inventory 41 land uses were identified from aerial photo-
graphs taken in April 1970 and delineated on overlays to the aerial
photographs. Table 7 shows the detailed land use in the Menomonee River
watershed in 1970.
-------
32
Table 7 - Detailed land use in the Menomonee River
Watershed, 1970
Land Use Category
URMH_
Residential
1. Single-family
2. Two- family
3. Multi-family high rise
4. Multi-family low rl««
5. Mobile homes
6. Residential under development
Retail and Services
7. Local retail and services
8. Regional retail and services
Wholesale And Storage
9. Wholesale (open)
10. Wholesale (enclosed)
Manufacturing
11. Manufacturing (all kinds)
12. Extractive (quarries, mining)
Transportation, Communication and Utility
Facilities
13. Rail, bus and ship terminals
14. Railroad right-of-way
15. Railroad yards
16. Airports (terminal and field)
17. Local and collector streets right-of-way
IB. Arterial street and highway right-of-way
19. Freeway and expressway right-of-way
20. Truck terminals
21. Off -street parking
22. Communication and utility facilities
(Ho offices)
Government and Institutional
23. Local institution
It. Regional institution
25. Local government
26. Regional government
Park and Recreation
27. Local public recreation area (enclosed)
28. Local public recreation area (open)
29. Regional public recreation area (enclosed)
30. Regional public recreation area (open)
31. Private and other recreation areas
(natural intensive use)
32. Private and other recreation areas
(artificial intensive care)
TOTAL URBAN LAW) USE
RURAL
Agriculture and Related
33. Crop lands and rotation pasture
34. Orchards and nurseries
35 . Fowl and fur farms
36. Other agricultural uses
Other Opon Lands, Evanps and Water Areas
37. Lakes, rivers, streams and canals**
38. Swamps, marshes and wetlands**
39. Unused lands
40. Land fill and dumps
HI. Woodlands**
TOTAL RURAL LAUD USE
TOTAL JJUffi USE
Area
ten2 mi1
71.71
4.48
0.1014
3.03
0.18
B.JH
4.43
0.16
2.20
1.81
3.95
1.92
0.21
3.39
1.66
1.53
23.46
11.32
S.16
0.67
6.29
2. 82
3.29
9.22
0.31
0.16
0,026
9.14
—
1.32
0.08
4.87
188.22
115.23
1.37
0.08
0.10
I'.'W
9.97
18.11
1.01
15.38
163,07
351.28
27.70
1.73
0,04
1,17
0.07
3.18
1.71
0.06
0.85
0.70
1.59
0.74
0.08
1.31
0.64
0.59
9.06
4.37
2.38
0.26
2.M3
1.09
1.27
3.56
0.13
0.06
0.01
3.53
—
0.51
0.03
1.88
72.67
44.51
0.53
0.03
0.04
0.55
3.85
7.11
0.39
5.94
62.96
135.63
\ of Watershed*
20.42
1.28
0.03
O.B6
0,05
2.34
1.26
0.0»
0.63
0.52
1.13
O.S5
0.06
0.97
0.47
0.4»
6.68
3.22
1.75
0.19
1.79
0.80
0.94
2.62
0.10
0.04
0.01
2.60
--
0.38
0.02
1.39
53. SB
SJ.82
0.39
0.02
0.03
0.41
2.84
5.24
0.29
4.38
46.42
100.00
* Percent of watershed was calculated by dividing area by 351.28 km2 (135.53 ml2).
**Th« wetland and woodland area data presented in this table was determined through
Air Photo Interpretation, Delineation, and Measurement by the SEWRPC as part of the
Watershed Land Use Inventory nndv as sucb» is not strictly comparable to the wetland
and woodland area d-ita presented as p-irt of the Natural Rcsourcs Inventory.
+ This totaJ represents tHe total area of the watershed as determined through approx-
imating the watershed boundary by U.S. Public Land Survey Quarter-Section and
Sumning the Quarter-Section Totals. The actual measured watershed total ,1s 355.42 km2
(137.J3 rnJ1).
Source: sntRTC
-------
33
Tentative areas have been selected for most of the land use activities
to be investigated (Table 8). For each land use category, except the
study of an airport, for which only one area was found, two or more loca-
tions were chosen. Locations in a particular land use activity were
ranked according to the density of land use based on the aerial photographs
and overlays. The locations of the first two tentative choices are pre-
sented in Fig. 15 along with the land use code number established by SEWRPC.
Selection of sites will be narrowed down after determination and
evaluation of the drainage pattern in each area using storm drain and
topographic maps. These maps are available at SEWRPC and personnel of
the Commission are assisting in the evaluation of runoff and storm water
flow patterns in selected areas.
Candidate test areas will be inspected for actual conditions not
shown on the maps. During this time, areas will be further assessed as
to accessibility of sampling sites, feasibility of sampling, and security
of sampling equipment. Some areas initially selected may be found unsuit-
able in which case addition of new areas will be necessary.
The watershed will be reconnoitered in early spring to determine new
and developing areas.
University of Wisconsin disciplinary research units
Since the specific land use studies require interdisciplinary
approaches, several colleges and programs of the University will be in-
volved. Laboratories of these units are fully equipped to handle the
analyses of selected parameters from the test areas.
Figure 16 shows the organizational chart of the specific land use
studies. Activities of the participating units will be coordinated by
the UW-WRC.
-------
Table 8 - Tentative locations for the specific
land use studies
Land Use Activity
Locations*
Rank
Transportation and Utility
Airport (53)**
Railroad yard (52)
Expressway (right-of-
vay) (56)
Expressway
(Interchange) (55)
Utility (59)
Retail and services
(10)
Manufacturing (30)
Single family (00)
Multiple family (03)
Golf course (75)
Park (71)
tandfill (93)
26 )
<3 )
Granville, T8N,R2JE, Sect. 32
Wauwatosa East, T71J,R??E, Sect. 31 arid 32 )
Wauwatcx-a W»,st, T7N.R21E, Sect. 36 5
Wauwato.S3 West, T7N.R21E, Sect.
Hauw-rtosa Went, T7N.R71E, Sect.
WauwatODa West, T7li,R21E, Sact.
Wauwotona West, T7:J,R2;E, Sect. ,5
Wauwatota West, T7i:,R21E, Sect. 23 and 34
Kauwatosn West, T7i',R21F, Sact, 6 and 7
Wauwatosd Last, T7N,n2IE, Sect. 20
Waurfaropa Wtst, 17N.R21E1, Sect. 26
Wauwatosa Host, T7N.R21E, r,eci. 3?
Greenfield, TbN,R?lE, Sect. 21 ar;d ?2
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 31 and 32
Wauwatosa West, T7H,R21E, Sect. 6 and 7
Greenfield, T6N,R?1E, Sect. 77
Greenfield, 16K,R21E, Sect. 5 and 6
CoTmnercial and Industrial
Brookfield, T7N.R20E, Sect. 27 and 28
BrookfieM, T7K.R20E, Sect. 1 and 12
Brookfield, T7H.R20E, Sect. 25
Wauwatosa West, T7N,R21E, Sect. 17 and'18
Menonionoe Falls, T8N.R20E, Sect. 25 and 3b
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 3t
Wauwatosa West, T7II.R21E, Sect. 36
Greenfiold, TCN.R21E, Sect. 1 and 2
Hauwatosa West, T7M.R21E, Sect. 6 and 7
Kauwatosa East, T7N.R22E, Sect. 30, 31 and 32
Menomonee Falls, T8N.R21E, Sect. 25 and 36
Residential
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 22
Kauwatosa West, T7H.R21E, Sect. 15 and 16
Greenfield, T6N.R21E, Sect. 15, 16, 21 and 22
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 25 and 36
Wauwatosa West, T7N,R21E, Sect. 24
Recreat ional
Wauwatosa West, T8N.R21E, Sect. 17
Granville, T8N.K21E, Sect. 7
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 7
Wauwatosa West, T7N.R21E, Sect. 23 and 24
Greenfield, T6N.R21E, Sect. 6
Granville, T8H,R21E, Sect. 16
Land Disposal
Wauwatosa West, T7H.R21E, Sect. 19
Menoraonee Falls, T8N.R20E, Sect. 1
West, T7W.R21E, Sect. 26
* A section has an area of 2.59 km' d „,!«)
** Figures in pai'entheses are code nuu.hers established by SEWRPC
-------
35
CODE
LAND-USE
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Retail and Services
Manufacturing
Railroad Yards
Airport
Freeways (Interchange and
Right-of-Way)
Communication and Utility
Facilities
Local Public Recreation
Area (Park)
Regional Public Recreation
Area (Park)
Private and Other Recreation
(Golf Course)
Landfill and Dumps
a - First choice for study
b - Second choice for study
Fig. 15 Locations of Tentative Sites for the Specific
Land Use Studies.
-------
36
O)
CD
C
D-
•r"
O
(0
Q.
C
O
I
C
«l—
l/l
C
o
o
O «/>
CU
T3
S- CO
0)
> o»
•I— l/J
c rs
ID I
T3
<4- U
O -r-
4-> O
•r- QJ
C Q.
C7)
-------
37
Work Unit 100-790 (UW-WRC) Remotely Sensed and Ancillary Data
Compilation
The imagery in the Remote Sensing Imagery Library of the University
of Wisconsin has been perused to determine the extent of coverage and the
image quality of ERTS and RB-57 (high altitude aircraft) acquired data
in southeastern Wisconsin.
To supplement the remotely sensed data, various types of maps, photo-
graphs, and land use summaries have been obtained from SEWRPC.
Hydrologically active source areas
Several study sites have been selected where investigations will be
undertaken to determine the applicability of remote sensing techniques
for detecting and monitoring hydrologically active source areas. High
and low altitude aerial photography, as well as thermal imagery, will
be used in this study.
Land cover analysis
Techniques are being investigated to determine if data digitized
from aerial photographs can be computer processed to produce land cover
maps. A 70-mm AMPS image (imaged by the RB-57 equipped with the AMPS
and RC-8 systems) has been digitized using the Optronics Scanning Micro-
densitometer. The digitized data have been placed on a computer tape
and mailed to Pennsylvania State University for preliminary analysis.
Work has begun on the various data calibration corrections necessary
before a final land cover analysis can be accomplished.
-------
38
C. LAND USE-WATER QUALITY PREDICTION: Modeling of the Menomonee
River Watershed System
The position of the particular work units within the overall work
plan for section C is shown in Fig. 17.
Mathematical modeling techniques will provide the links between
the river water quality monitoring program and land use in the Menomonee
River watershed. In the final stage, the models that result from the
activities formulated in the Work Plan of the project (1) shall have the
predictive capability necessary to facilitate extension of the findings
from the Menomonee River watershed study to other urban settings, leading
to an eventual goal of integrating pollutional inputs from urban sources
to the entire Great Lakes Basin. The proposed work will be part of the
Task C portion of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study Project and
will be coordinated with other program activities as indicated by the
organizational structure illustrated in Fig.18.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED WORK
The Task C portion of the project, as specified in the plan, will
be focused primarily on monitoring land use, water quality and environ-
mental parameters in the pilot watershed area, and the analysis and
investigation of the interrelationships between the land use activities
and water quality. Thus, the mathematical models shall be able to:
I. Evaluate the data matrix from the monitoring program and present
the results in such form that they could be evaluated and inter-
preted in common statistical quantities such as mean, standard
deviation, frequency distribution, power spectrum, etc., and/or
conveyed to further processing by a more general and more des-
criptive model of the watershed.
II. Relate water quality to land use activities, define the interrel-
ationships between land use activities and corresponding water
quality parameters and estimate the degree of correlation.
-------
39
VERIFICATION,
OF MODE
TEST
MODELS
Fig. 17 Study Plan for Objective C.
-------
WATER QUALITY
STA1ISTICAL
MODEL(S)
Fig. 18 Organizational Structure for the Coordination
of Modeling Activities with Other Task C
Activities.
-------
III. Describe the history of pollutants (water quality compounds)
during their transport in surface runoff and rivers.
IV. Generalize the findings into a predictive land use-water quality
model.
In the initial planning stages the model should have three basic
components:
a. A Statistical and Time Series Analysis Model (STSAM) capable
of evaluating the data matrix from monitoring programs. This
model must accept the raw monitoring data and perform the
analysis.
b. An Overland Flow Model (OFM) which describes the transformation
of such environmental inputs as rain and other meteorological
factors , and land use activities parameters into non-point
surface pollution.
c. A River Transport Model (RTM) which describes the history of
the pollutants during their transport from the point of entry
in the river system to the end of the system, namely, the lake.
The above models must be interrelated, i.e., outputs from one model
will represent inputs to another model. In the model building process
there must also be a feedback, in as much as the magnitude of the model
parameters must be readjusted and refined during model verification based
on the data and results of the monitoring program.
Figure 19 shows the basic components of the modeling process, their
interrelationships and feedback. It can be seen that the entire activity
of this portion of Task C will result in a predictive land use-water
quality model having a predictive capability for other watersheds in the
Great Lakes Region.
-------
-------
HEADWATERS POINT
FLOWS AND POLLUTION
QUALITY INVENTORY
METEOROLOGICAL GROUNO
INPUTS (RAIN, HATER
TEMPERATURE MINI). tTC.) INPUTS
ST.DERIVATIONS
MULTIPLE & CROSS
CORRELATION
RELATE
STATISTICAL
WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS TO
LAND USE
CHARACTERISTICS
MODELS VERIFICATION
IN TIME DOMAIN
MODEL
ADEQUATE
FREQUENCY RESPONSE
VERIFICATION
RELATE WATER QUALITY
TRANSFORM FUNCTIONS
TO LAND USE
CHARACTERISTICS
LAND USE-WATER
QUALITY
STATISTICAL MODEL
JJ PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY
[Z) LAND USE CONTROL
DECISION QUESTIONS
VERIFICATION
FINAL
PREDICTIVE
MODEL
©
Fig. 19 Components of the Modeling System.
-------
BASIC OUTLINE OF THE MODEL COMPONENTS
Component I - Statistical and Time Series Analysis Model (STSAM)
Data from the monitoring program, collected within the frames of
the work units 225-250, 250-275-280 and 375-275, will represent an enor-
mous amount of material which has to be sorted, analyzed and interpreted.
As it can be seen from Fig.20 the data represents a three-dimensional
matrix—the dimensions being time, location and monitored parameters—
which will combine about 100,000 elements. In order to use the results
of monitoring, a computer program must be developed which would analyze
the data using statistical and time series analysis techniques.
The basic blocks of the program are shown in Fig. 21. This program
will provide the following characteristics:
Statistical subroutine
This subroutine provides:
0 daily, weekly, monthly and yearly means for each parameter
0 standard deviations
0 mass flow averages
0 frequency distribution for each parameter using one of the following:
log-normal distribution
Pearson-Type III distribution
log-Pearson Type III distribution
0 mass flow frequency distribution; an average of the increase or
decrease of the parameters' mass flow between the sampling points.
Correlation subroutine
This subroutine yields:
0 autocorrelation function for each parameter
0 cross-correlations between the parameters
0 cross-correlations between parameters and flow (using linear and
log-log relations)
0 cross-correlations between the monitoring points
0 multiple regression of water quality parameter changes related to
-------
DATA MATRIX
j < no. of monitoring
stations
i « no. of monitored
parameters
t < max. time period
of the observation
Fig. 20 The Data Matrix from Monitoring
Work Units.
-------
DATA FROM
STORE!
STATISTICAL
MODEL
MEANS, STANDARD
DEVIATIONS, FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTIONS, FOR EACH
MONITORED PARAMETER
CORRELATION
MODEL
AUTOCORRELOGRAMS,
->. CROSS-COREELOGRAMS,
MULTIPLE
ANALYSIS
REGRESSION
TIME SERIES
ANALYSIS
POWER SPECTRA,
COHERENCES,
TRANSFORM FUNCTIONS
Fig. 21 Components of the STSAM.
-------
land use activities.
Time series analysis subroutine
This subroutine provides:
0 power spectra for each parameter (example of the type of data
required is shown in Fig. 22 and the power spectrum generated in
Fig- 23)
0 cross-spectra for intercorrelated parameters
0 coherence functions
0 frequency response functions for the systems between two monitored
points.
A more detailed discussion of time series analyses can be found in
references 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Component II - Overland-flow Model
This program is a method of analysis to estimate the quantity and
quality of runoff from small watersheds. The pollutional inputs covered
by this model can be basically characterized as "non-point" pollutional
sources, i.e., contributions to the overall water quality arising from
such sources as surface erosion, street washings, air contamination,
accumulation of surface pollutants, and wash-out of fertilizers and
organics from farmland. This model must contain two basic components:
Quantity subroutine
This subroutine generates:
0 surface runoff information based on climatological parameters and
watershed characteristics.
The quantity of runoff has traditionally been estimated using the
Rational Formula or a similar method using frequency-duration-rain
intensity curves. Such approaches normally neglect the time interval
between storms and the capacity of the land system to react to different
storm or rainfall patterns.
-------
-------
200 -
= 100
x « 70.56 mg/1
Mon Tues Wed
Sun
Fig. 22 Time Record of Total Organic Carbon Variation
Frequency 1/hr
Fig. 23 Power Spectrum.
-------
Figure 24 shows the basic components of the quantity subroutine.
In most models the runoff is computed from the following formula:
r = c (P - f)
where r = runoff in cm/hour
c = composite runoff coefficient
P = rainfall-snowmelt in cm/hour
f = available depression storage in cm/hour.
The runoff coefficient represents losses due to infiltration and is
a function of the land use data. Depression storage is the capacity of
the watershed to retain water in ditches, depressions and on foliage.
The amount of depression storage at any point in time is a function of
past rainfall-snowmelt and evapotranspiration rates.
The model will have two components, i.e., the surface (overland)
and gutter flows. The flow in gutters is governed by common hydraulic
laws—equations of continuity and motion.
Quality subroutine
This subroutine transforms:
0 The climatological, runoff and watershed parameters into runoff
quality information.
The quality of runoff could be computed by solving the differential
equations describing the history of each particular pollutant. A series
of differential equations and their solutions are required to describe:
1. the pollutant behavior in soil or on the surface as a function of
time both during and between rainfall (snowmelt) events; 2. the transfer
of the pollutant to water runoff; 3. the .interaction between the dissolved
pollutants and sediments; and M-. the waterborne transport of undissolved
and unadsorbed pollutants.
The soil-loss model must predict the amount of soil eroded and
-------
Rain/Snow
t 4 Evapotranspiration
Point input to River
Transport Model
Fig. 24 Representation of the Overland Flow Model
-------
50
and pollutants lost from the soil or surface. The amount of the suspended
materials in runoff is usually computed using the USDA Universal Soil Loss
Equation
A = (R) (K) (LS) (C) (P)
where
A = average soil loss for a given storm
R = the rainfall factor
K = the soil erodability factor
LS = the slope length gradient ratio
C = the cropping management factor
P = the erosion control practice factor
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was used in the Storm Water
Management Model (6) and STORM (7) to predict the amount of suspended
solids in the runoff. However, in models of erosion of such pollutants
as pesticides, this approach encountered some criticism. The Universal
Soil Loss Equation contains no provision for measuring or predicting
pesticide loss in the accompanying runoff and a dynamic procedure model
is presently under development (8). This model will "piggyback" pollu-
tant movement and transport on existing models, namely, the Stanford
Hydrologic (9) and Stanford Sediment (10) Models.
Several other models are presently available which could be com-
bined and modified to serve as the basic sources for the proposed overland
flow model. These reference models are listed in a subsequent section.
By using delineated models for runoff and soil movement a more efficient
route to an operable computer simulation model can be obtained. New
software development will focus on writing the boundary conditions and
subroutine algorithms necessary for the description of missing links in
the models.
The general components of such models are shown in Fig. 25. The
major components of the models involve descriptions of the prime trans-
porters of pollutants, i.e., water and sediment. The hydrologic model
-------
-------
RAIN
5]
METEOROLOGICAL
DATA ~
SOIL
PERMEABILITY "
EROSION
CONTROL
TOPOGRAPHY
SLOPE
ROUGHNESS
DECAY
CHARACTERISTICS
DISPERSION
SURFACE RUNOFF
QUAlITY
SOIL LOSS
SURFACE RUNOFF
QUALITY
GUTTER FLOW
QUANTITY
GUTTER FLOW
QUALITY
PRINT OR STORE
LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS
CROPPING MANAGEMENT
1) TO RIVER
^ TRANSPORT MODEL
VIA MAGNETIC
TAPE OR DISC
TO RIVER
TRANSPORT MODEL
Fig. 25 Components of the Overland Flow Model.
-------
52
must describe the water balance as a function of time, including overland
flow, interceptor and groundwater storage, groundwater loss and transport
to the nearest stream. Precipitation characteristics and topography of
the drainage basin and perviousness of the area are major factors influ-
encing water balance and movement; runoff will not occur unless the rainfall
intensity exceeds the total storage capacity of the canopy interceptor
and the surface depressions.
The soil-loss model must predict the amount of soil eroded and bound-
pollutant lost on a single event basis. The soil-loss model must also
describe loss of organic matter and its dispersion, removal and transport.
Models of Runoff Presently in Use
a. Stanford Watershed Model (9)
b. Urban Storm Water Runoff "STORM"
Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (7)
c. Storm Water Management Model (6)
d. Stanford Sediment Model (10)
e. University of Cincinnati Urban Runoff Manual (11)
f. EPA Pesticide Runoff Model (under development) (8)
Component III - River Transport Model
A mathematical model of a stream or canal system consists of a
series of elements, each corresponding to a discrete stream or canal
segment, arranged so that the output from one element becomes the input
to the next. The transfer function is determined by performing a mass
balance of a given water quality parameter over a time interval, At, on
a stream or canal segment.
A possible segmentation of the Menomonee River is shown in Fig. 26.
The River Transport Model basically will have a Quantity and Quality
-------
-------
53
POINT POLLUTIONAL
SOURCE
SURFACE RUNOFF INPUT
(FROM OVERLAND
FLOW MODEL)
Fig. 26 Representation of the River System
(River Transport Model).
-------
-------
subroutine.
Quantity subroutine
Contrary to the classical concept of the oxygen balance, most pesti-
cides and other pollutants are transported during high flows. Thus, the
modeling of high flows or flood routing is at least as important as model-
ing low flow steady-state conditions. The unsteady-state high flow
conditions are relatively difficult to model and are represented by two
equations, namely, (1) the continuity equation and (2) the equation of
motion.
and
,8V . 3V
(D
+ it+ ^f+i - °
(2)
in which
A = flow area
V = mean velocity
x = distance
B = surface width
h = water surface elevation
t = time
q = lateral local inflow per unit distance and
time
g = gravitational constant
f = energy gradient.
The boundary conditions may be given as discharge or water surface
elevation versus time, or as a stage-discharge relationship. A steady-
flow profile, a flat pool-zero flow profile, or a transient flow profile
obtained from previous computations may be used as the initial conditions.
In addition to boundary and initial conditions, input data on local
-------
-------
55
inflows, channel geometry and boundary resistance must be prescribed.
From these input data, flows, mean velocities, and water surface eleva-
tions for each channel reach are computed.
In finite different methods, differential equations are replaced by
approximative difference equations, and the continuous region in the
analytical solution is replaced by a set of discrete points called a net.
Quality subroutine
The quality parameters will be superimposed on the transport model.
The aquatic system is conceived to be comprised of water, its suspended
and dissolved impurities and various life forms. Foreign and natural
substances derived from air, soil, and the activities of man are inputs
to the system and exert an influence on its life structure. The theoret-
ical bases for the quality computations are derived from the law of
conservation of mass and from kinetic principles. A system is comprised
of hydraulic elements (segments) as shown in Fig. 27 which are identical
with those for the quantity considerations. For each substance considered
to be an integral component of the overall water quality picture, it is
necessary to write a mass transfer equation. The net transfer to or from
this element is considered to be the sum of transfer from a variety of
physical, chemical and biological processes. Thus,
Mass Transfer = Advection + Diffusion + Input
- Output - Sedimentation + Scour
± Reaeration - Decay ± Chemical
Transformation ± Biological Uptake
± Respiration Release.
Such a model is comprised of a set of balance equations that are
solved over a time and space continuum appropriate to the environment
being simulated.
Numerous water quality models are available, most of which have been
-------
-------
56
Control Volume
HYDROLOGIC BALANCE £ of sources
11S", and sinks
local
Advection
MATERIAL BALANCE
Fig. 27 Discretized Stream System after
Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
-------
57
developed for the oxygen balance of rivers and estuaries. A water network
such as the Menomonee River, is a conglomerate of complex biological,
chemical, physical and hydrological factors. A mathematical model is the
functional representation of the response of the system or process to a
given input. The mathematical statement of the problem consists of an
input, a transfer function, and an output or response; the output from a
system is restated to the input through the transformation function.
An important component of the quality subroutine will be a descrip-
tion of the scour factor and deposition of suspended solids. The scour
and deposition may be estimated by either Toffaleti's application of the
Einstein Bed Load Function, Madden's modification of the Laursen Transport
Relationship, or a transport capacity/meter of width versus the depth-
slope product. The silt and clay sizes are transported until the shear
stress on the stream bed becomes less than critical.
The overall structure of the River Transport Model and its relation
to the Overland Flow Model is shown in Fig.28.
Existing Models of Pollutional Transport in Rivers and Streams are:
1. RECEIV - A dynamic subroutine of the Storm Water Management Model—
computes pollutographs and hydrographs of a surface water body
receiving storm water pollution (6).
2. QUALI - A semi-dynamic (assumes steady hydraulic conditions) model
of temperature, D.O. balance and conservative pollutants of a river
or canal system (13).
3. TVA - Flood Routing Model - A dynamic river flow model (14-).
4. WRE - Ecologic Simulation Model - A complex ecological dynamic model
for estuaries and lakes (15).
5. Delaware Estuary Dynamic Model (16).
6. Scour and Deposition of Sediments in Rivers and Reservoirs - U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (7).
-------
58
HYDROLOGIC
PARAMETER
GEOMETRIC
PARAMETER
(WORK UNIT 100-325)
HYDROLOGIC
DATA
(WORK UNIT 100-325}
WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
TEMPERATURE
SOLAR RADIATION
BUILDING OF
THE SYSTEM
WATER QUALITY
MODEL
SCOUR AND
SEDIMENTATION
WATER QUALITY
MODEL
PRINT OR
STORE
POINT WASTE INPUTS
m LAND (SURFACE)
RUNOFF
HEADWATERS FLOWS
GROUNDWATER FLOWS
SEDIMENT INPUT
LAND (SURFACE)
POLLUTION INPUTS
POINT (WASTEWATER)
INPUTS
Fig. 28 Components of the River Transport Model
-------
59
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL FOR MENOMONEE RIVER PROGRAM
From the preceding discussion,, it is evident that three basic com-
ponents of the overall modeling program will have to be developed, namely:
1. A Statistical and Time Series Analysis Model
2. An Overland Flow Model
3. A River Transport Model.
At the present time, there are no obstacles to a parallel develop-
ment of these three components provided that the activities are coordinated
in such a manner that the final products will be compatible. Thus, three
teams can work concurrently on the development of these models. It is
expected that the Water Resources Center will coordinate these activities
with inputs from campuses in the University of Wisconsin System, Marquette
University, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
The project, as stated in the Work Plan (1) will have six basic
work units:
Unit 100-810 Selection of Modeling Parameters
Unit 810-825 Selection of Basic Modeling Systems
Unit 825-850 Development of Models
Unit 850-875 Modification of Models
Unit 875-900 Testing of Models
Unit 900-950 Verification of Models.
In this detailed work plan the basic structure has been expanded—
due to the scope of the overall project—to total 27 work units. To
determine the sequence of specific activities of the work units, a CPM-type
diagram was designed (Fig. 29 ) which was replotted to give the bar chart
diagram with the calendar time scale (Fig 30).
A diagram of the communication system is shown in Fig. 31.
-------
60
O
-------
61
1974 1975 1976 1977
Activity - Work Unit
34 '1234 1234 1234
Land Use/Water Quality Prediction
Select modeling parameters (100-810)
Literature review (810-811)
Select basic formulations (811-825)
Existing models acquisition (100-831) ||(
Testing of existing models (831-825) mimim
Development of STSAM (825-841) uuuiui
Testing STSAM (841-842) U|
STSAM evaluation (842-844) „,
Prep, of data for STSAM (841-843-846-845) IUUAUIJUJJUII
Analysis of data (844-845) Ul
Evaluation of data (845-856) m
Users manual for STSAM (856-950) ,,
Definition of common variables for
OFM and RTM (825-851) „
Development of OFM (851-853) imiiiiiii
Development of RTM (851-852) iiiiiuiiu
Testing OFM (853-854) „
Testing RTM (852-854) ||||M1
Combining OFM and RTM (854-855) „
Preliminary data for verification
OFM and RTM (844-855) IU1I1I
Land use data for OFM and RTM (825-855) IIIIIIHIIIIHII
Verification of the OFM and RTM (855-850) iiimnui
Modification of OFM and RTM (850-875) mum
Final data for OFM and RTM (845-875) „
Evaluation of OFM and RTM (875-900) „„„,
Finalizing the model (900-950) mini
OFM and RTM users manual (900-960) mimnm
Final Report mi mi
Fig. 30 Bar Chart Diagram for Land-use/Water Quality
Modeling Activities.
-------
62
o
r—
r— -
•r—
3C
• CJ
Z3 **£
^
Z
/
_J
z:
ce >-i
Ul S
^> UJ
0. t~
z:
o
a.
in
CM
r—
00
cc m
3:
LU E:
t/1 03
I—*
\
_J
•«
E:
i—*
SE
K a:
UJ UJ
:D
a.
s:
o
0
o
a.
OS
3:
•*->
U
s-
0!
-M
3
a.
E
O
o
E
-------
63
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES: Activities in Support of the Study
Objectives
The position of the particular work units within the overall work
plan for data evaluation and storage is shown in Fig. 32.
Work Unit 500-850 and 550-875 (UW-WRC): Data Storage, Processing
and Dissemination
Design of the land data management system
A Land Data Management System (Land DMS) was designed by SEWRPC for
the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study during the last half of 1974.
In this system, "land" is a comprehensive term referring to all those
watershed characteristics that have an areal extent. Land data encom-
passes, for example, land use, land cover, soil type and civil division
data but does not include water quality data, streamflow data, air qual-
ity data and meteorological data.
The overall objective of the Land DMS is to provide an efficient
and systematic means for storing, retrieving, analyzing and displaying
land data generated under the pilot watershed study. In addition to
meeting the anticipated needs of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study participants, the Land DMS is designed to be consistent with the
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Data Handling and Processing Work Group
of the Task C Technical Committee. Design of the Land DMS was preceded
by a literature review intended to sample the spectrum of existing Land
DMS's—including those in the conceptual or strictly research stage—in
order to provide background information and ideas.
The basic storage unit for handling land data in the pilot study
Land DMS is the cell. The cell approach was selected over the area
boundary alternative because the cell mode appears to be more technically
and economically feasible with respect to the effort required to code
-------
Fig. 32 Study Plan for Data Evaluation and Storage
-------
65
areal data from primary sources and with respect to the computer program-
ming and computer storage required to manipulate and interpret the data
including the use of overlay and weighting techniques. Cells having an
area of about 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres) will be formed by partitioning
quarter sections within the U.S. Public Land Survey system using the pro-
cedure shown in Fig. 33. The principal advantage of using cells that
are partitions of quarter sections is that it will facilitate the geo-
referencing of each cell since horizontal control has been established
for a large number of quarter-section corners in the watershed using field
survey methods and that control will be directly transferrable, by computa-
tion, to the centers and corners of each cell. A multiple geo-referencing
system will be used in the Land DMS. The center of each cell will be
referenced to the University Transverse Mercator System, latitude and long-
itude and the Wisconsin State Plane Coordinate System.
Land data will be entered into the Land DMS by coding the percent of
each areal characteristics in each cell. The types of land data to be
coded into the Land DMS will be drawn from the list of land data types
included under Work Unit 100-425 in this report.
The digital computer system—hardware and software—needed to support
the Land DMS may be viewed as being comprised of four phases: the input
phase, the data management phase, the data base phase, and the output
phase. The content of and the interrelationships between each of these
four phases of the digital computer system are shown in Fig. 34-. The
computer system supporting the Land DMS will be the SEWRPC 1MB Series 370,
Model 125 system. This is essentially the same system that will support
a Land DMS for water quality data, streamflow data, air quality data and
meteorological data.
The next phase of development of the Land DMS is the preparation of
the necessary computer programming. The software will be tested using a
variety of land data types for a small portion of the Menomonee River
watershed.
-------
66
Section:
Nominal Area =
1 mi.2 or 2.59 km.2
1/4 Section:
8 Equal Divisions
per Side
Cell:
Nominal Area =
2.5 Acres or 1.0 Hectare.
Nominal Length of Side =
330"ft. or 101 m.
Fig. 33 A Cell: The Basic Area! Unit in
the Land Data Management System.
-------
67
Input
Source Data
Optical
Character
Reading
Data
Management
and
Data Base
Inp
Out
ut Control
Maintenance
Data
Base
put Control
Security
Output
/ Plots / I Card
Tabular
Fig. 34 Computer System Required to Support
the Data Management System.
-------
68
Water quality data
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has begun final test-
ing of the computerized system for water quality data control for the
Menomonee River Study. This system has 3 phases, namely, data entry,
data verification and preparation of final data type. Data entry is via
remote terminal at the Laboratory Services Section of WDNR for laboratory-
generated and in situ field data. The current files are maintained on
the UW-Univac 1110 by WDNR and can be accessed by a remote terminal.
Submission of prepared tapes to the U.S. EPA STORET system will be made
periodically and additional copies of the data will be available for
study participants.
-------
69
REFERENCES
1. Konrad, J. G., G. Chesters and K. W. Bauer. 1974. International
Joint Commission Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study - Work
Plan. 44 pp.
2. Bendat, J. S. and A. G. Piersol. 1972. Random data: Analysis
and measurement procedures. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y.
3. Jenkins, G. M. and D. G. Watts. 1969. Spectral analysis and its
application. Holden-Day, San Francisco, Ca.
4. Carlson, R. F., D. G. Watts and A. J. McCormick. 1968. Linear
random models of annual stream flow series. Water Resources
Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
5. Novotny, V. 1974. Statistical evaluation and optimization of
wastewater monitoring programs. Report to ENVIREX, Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wis.
6. Anon. 1972. Storm water management model. Metcalf and Eddy, for
U.S. EPA, Environmental Protection Technology Series,
Washington, D.C.
7. Anon. 1974. Urban storm water runoff-STORM. Hydrologic Engineering
Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
8. Bailey, G. W., R. R. Swank and H. P. Nicholson. 1974. Predicting
pesticide runoff from agricultural land: A conceptual model.
J. Environ. Qual. Vol. 3, No. 2.
9. Crawford, N. H. and R. K. Linsley. 1966. Digital simulation in
hydrology: Stanford Watershed Model IV. Stanford University
Technical Report No. 39. Stanford University, Palo Alto, Ca.
10. Negev, M. 1967. A sediment model on a digital computer. Stanford
University Technical Report No. 76. Stanford University,
Palo Alto, Ca.
11. Papadakis, C. and H. C. Preul. 1972. University of Cincinnati Urban
Run Off Model. J. Hydraulic Division, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 98,
No. HY.
12. Terstriep, M. L. and J. B. Stall. 1969. Urban run off by road
research laboratory method. J. Hydraulic Division, Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 95, No. HY6.
13. Anon. 1970. QUAL-1-Simulation of water quality in streams and
canals. Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas.
-------
70
14. Garrison, J. M., J. P. Granju and J. T. Price. 1972. Unsteady flow
simulation in rivers and reservoirs. J. Hydraulic Division,
Proc. ASCE, Vol. 95, No. HY 5.
15. Chen, C. W. and G. T. Orlob. 1972. Ecologic simulation for aquatic
environments. WRE, Walnut Creek, Ca.
16. Thomann, R. V. 1972. System analysis and water quality management.
Environmental Sciences Services Division, ERA, New York, N.Y.
-------
APPENDIX
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
•3
X
•H
C
Q)
ft
ft
bk
u •
o|w
&
QJ OJ -
iB (%
H W r
10 in oo .T 01 o
<""> o o o
10 i i 01
I CO O
• • r» co
CO O fH rH
CD O
CO CN
en CD
r-* r-
o m
co o
COfN iHJ-tn Hi^CN rH rH
rH | I CO & I (O I I I
HtO r-J iHO COO rHO t^-O COO
•>CN t^-O * * : n.
73
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
76
•P *
k
0
H
O
CJ
o
n
•H
•P
O
3
•o
g
CJ
co
0)
•o
•rH
tl
0
H
J3
CJ
TJ
01 01
H "d ui
H C 'CJ
H 5 -H
(d O. H
HMO
O 3 CO
> CO
tJ
01
w -aw
t> c -a
•H a> -H
H P, H
O WO
CO 3 CO
CO
M
H -a
fO -H
•P H
O O
£-, CO
f<
O
tu
C bO
(0 C
at ID
E (2
fc
01
P
JU
0-
.
a
CO
H
*-.
M
B
X
cx
CJ
3
E
5
^
w
o
c
H
*x
M
g
H
—
bO
B
0
o CM o in o o o
r- H co d in co d-
1 1 I 1 1 1 1
u> o cnin CMO oo cMin coin oo
d-co coco CMH d-co COCN d-co COCN
O CO
H CN d-
• . co co co • d-
d-d- H H o
H H en I 1 H en
CO 1 O 1 1 Cn CN ID CO 1 1
• en .COCNO •• • • co to CN en
CN • O • ••HOCNO •• ••
H cn Hr1- cot-^ HH HH coin coco
co en in H d CM H
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
oco d-cn Hen o^co oio end- cnio
cor- cor- cor- c--r- cor- c-t- r-r-
o in o
in • • in •
• in CN in o • CN
CO CM CM • • CN CN
HI I in r- CN I
I in o oo o i I H 1 o o
inin .• ••CNOHO • o . •
-•cocoioo •• .-r-«ino
coo HH HH HCN coo Hen HH
1
o o o o o o o
CN m d- d- en o r-
CM O CM CM CM H CO
CM H H H H H H
CO t 1 co I I I I in t
r-o d-d- din oin j o CM
CO d" CO :f H CN 10
CN I I i I r- I
01 CNCO COCN r-in d-CN coi 01 CD
CM CM CM CM CM CM CbO
idc IDC njc iuc roc idc rec
(Urfl : K X K Z« X K
.-t
co co co r- d- d- d-
r- r- r- i r- r- r-
01 en en co en en en
H H H r- H H H
h H P c Pi H p
O. 3 O id O, 3 O
< <1 O >-> < 1-3 O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A >i M > ,q >i bo
0) id 3 O 0) Id 3
i<« x < x u< & •£
CO
o
P
CO
PJ
P
ifi
•8
M
C
ra
f.
V)
C
o
•H
•P
id
>
rU
CU
«
A
O
>,
H
h
CD
•P
h
3
3
O
«
-------
77
to
rH
•3
H
X
•H
•d
G
•rH
a
bo
CJ
rQ
C
"S3
3
CJ
6
rH
If
fc
0
a
C 00
iC Cl
o> d
3: oJ
^
4J
4-J
10
3
O
CM
O
•
O
1
CM H
0 0
O 0
V
CM
O
o
o
o
CN CM
O 0
O O
0 O
O O
V
in
o
o
0
CO CM
O 0
0 0
o o
V
o
o
1
CO CM
o o
o o
V
in
o
o
1
CO -J-
CM r",
o o
o o
o
CO
0
o
1
o m
rH O
O 0
0 0
e-i
o
0
i
0 0
0 rj
V
GJ
C2 bfl
m t;
<3J ro
•S Pi
07
•H
£-1
Oj
^
I
XI
!>-<
O
o
1
CM rH
0 O
O O
CM CM
O O
O O
O O
O O
o
rH
O
O
1
O CM
O O
0 O
o o
V
CN
O
o
1
CM CM
0 0
O O
to
O
O
1
CO 0
CM CN
O O
O O
tn
rH
0
o
1
r-i CO
rH O
O O
O 0
CO
o
o
I
CO U~)
rH O
O O
o o
V
fj)
C bO
S3 04
CO
en
rH
H
^
t— J
£>•>
J2
CM
rH
o
o
I
CM
o
o
o
CO
o
o
.tf
CO
0
o
4"
r-H
o
o
IO
o
0
c;
m
5)
K
CO
01
rH
-H
CJ
o
1
"3
**
in
rH
o
0
1
rH
o
o
V
CM
o
0
o
o
V
CM
o
o
•
o
I
CM
o
o
o
V
CO
o
o
[
CN
o
o
V
^J-
o
o
1
o
CM
o
o
o
CN
o
o
i
rH
o
0
o
CO
o
0
i
0
o
o
CJ
1-0
c
to
oo
rH
o
•
o
CO CO
rH O
o o
o o
to
o
o
o
o
1
tn CM
O 0
O 0
o o
0 O
V
I—
o
o
o
•
o
1
r- CM
0 O
o o
o o
o o
V
CO
o
o
o
tn i
in co
o o
o o
0 0
f-r,
o
•
o
1
4- CN
o o
O 0
C7>
o
o
o
in 1
tD CO
o o
0 O
0 O
CO
U">
0
o
!
,-i CO
CN O
o o
o o
0)
C U)
SS i2
.3-
t
£T>
c
fti
(--,
£*
o
Si
CO
CO
o
o
-J- 1
CM rH
o o
o o
V
tn
o
o
o
o
4" CM
0 0
O 0
o o
0 0
V
o
CM
o
o
o
1
CO CN
O 0
o o
o o
o o
0
CM
CO
r
J- to
r- o
0 0
in
o
o
1
(O C-~
C\j t~4
o o
o o
o
f-
o
o
t
CO o
H t-
rH 0
O o
o o
CO
CM
o
0
1
CO to
H O
O 0
o o
(1)
C 60
rO c
O '0
£ a.
•t
r-
CTl
'H
p^
pt
^
J
^a
o
in
CM
o
o
1
cr> o
o o
o o
-f
o
o
o
o
t
CO CM
0 O
o o
o o
o o
V
c-
o
o
•
o
1
CO
4- O
o o
O 0
o o
•&
CD
o
o
1
O CM
CO O
o o
o o
o
o
rH
o
1
CO 0
=*• rH
o o
O 0
_^
rH
o
o
t
rH f-
rH 0
c o
0 O
o
CN
o
o
1
CO .3"
rH O
o o
o o
8)
C BO
n) t;
0 10
3S rrt
-*-
r-
C7>
rH
1-3
t
nj
as
o
OJ
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
!
CO
o
o
o
CO
o
o
p^.
o
o
o
3r
o
o
o
C-t
a1
sr
•3"
Hi
4-*
CJ
o
t
••3
<
^.
CM
o
o
1
in
rH
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
1
CM
o
o
o
o
V
CO
o
o
o
0
V
1
CN
o
o
o
0
£
rH
o
o
I
0
o
o
V
rt-
o
.
o
1
CM
o
0
CM
rH
o
o
t
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
-t
o
o
o
0)
bO
c
CO
o
4-1
CO
6
o
M~{
•a
CD
bt)
c
cd
c
o
•H
4 J
F<
"o
^
t,
01
•p
*t*
3
o*
•K
-------
78
0)
f*
4_i
c
0
cu
i i
•rH
w
id -K
cu j-
C en
cu H
•M
X F-l
CU CU
cu o
C 0
(U O
> 1
£j l~"l
HJ
H fc
£ |
4_> ,£)
rd cu
PL,
cd
+J «.
H) p
13 CU
-P -H
C Pi
0)
•H CU
& 0)
•P C
3 0
C E
o
MH C
O CU
& *"
E -P
3 -H
to j
1
^*
cu
rH
cd
H
X
•H
£-J
rtl
X
t*<
C^i
*c
w
3
o
D<
o
••C
d.
q
CO
bO
2
P
•H
S!
fc
1
o
1
H
o
w
CO
•H
a
OH
H
nj
JIJ
o
•*
1
rr!
g
2:
i
m
O
S5
+
w
O
K
1
s
nt
O
^
f^
o
c
rd
(U
S
£4
o
P
^
rfl
O1
H
"M
i-H
^»»,
g)
"
CU
bO
C
n)
04
O O O -* J" O CM
r^ o CM oo j- to 10
O rH CM O O IO O
o o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
toco coo coco cncN i>j- coo too
COrH d-rH COrH COrH CNrH COCM CNH
OO OO OO OO OO HO OO
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
00 PI CO O t- 00 3-
H H CO CN H to rH
o o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
cncN COCN OCM aid- om ooo Hen
OO OO CNH OO rHO CMO HO
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
o o d- co to co "3
CO H H CO CO O H
O O O O O o O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CNCN C-^CO tOH lOzt COOO tOH tOH
HO OO OO CNH CNO Oo OO
OO OO OO OO OO Oo OO
V V
CN tO 00 CN CN CO 00
J- en H CN 3- J- co
CN H O CO CO H O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
HtO CNCO CNd- HO d-CN tor- OH
into oo HO ooo toio ooo CMO
HO HO OO HH HO HO OO
in O H CM to CO H
CN H en H H -t co
H H o H H H 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
;fCN O J" CNO CNCO COO OOH COZJ-
cnc^- cnc~* cor^ coto cr>r^ ocn to^j~
OO OO OO OO OO HO OO
d> CO CO QJ CU CU (U
C bo c 00 c; bo C bO n W> C hO C HO
n)C rBB n)C rdG rdC rOC rdc
euro euro a) a con) con) cora con)
arx EPS SE« £;« sj« s:i^ HP?
a-
CO CO CO t^- zt jj* ^~
en en en co en 01 tr>
H H H r- H H H
fn H P C fc H P
O< 3 O 10 O. 3 O
< ""3 O "~D < "r> O
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A >, bO > ,Q >i bO
co rt 3 o a) n) 3
f^ s; -=c s H< sc *=c
CO
o
+-•
co
1
•d
0)
bO
ro
r.
n
G
o
•H
4->
^
«
_2
o
>!
H
^
CO
P
JL(
rd
3
•::
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
80
fl\
VI*
H
-P
+J
•H
i— ~?
f*
O
P
•H
UJ
TlJ
0
PH
J_J *ii
X J-
0) r-
tw i — i
f-J C^
rQ
< 0
%) O
r-i O
cd i
iH CO
H r-
> H
-H !>i
10 Si
rtf 3
TJ H
Rj rO
TJ* G)
Q_i
to
H *
fO fc
P 0)
0) >
e -H
4-1 ^
O
E"1 6
f-t O
rd G
pj W
G f-*
to s
1
cn
rP
H
X
•H
C
A
Ot
^^
•M
CO
X
•d
ft
Pu
t§
o
^
CJ
§
s
J)
C,
o
o
to .
0 0
0 1
• CM
0 O
o
o
V
IT)
O
-t •
o o
O CM
0
O
V
^
CM
O
H 0
O 1
. o
O e-i
0
0
Ul
CM
O
CM •
0 !
O 0
o
o
CO
o
in -
f-4 0
O I
* in
o o
o
o
V
O)
c oo
nj C
CO
(^
CO
H
>,
H
3
f"3
I
%
S3
CM
O
CM •
O O
• 1
0 rH
O
O
V
CM
O
1 0
o
o
V
CM
O
O
CM -
O O
O I
. CM
O O
C
O
V
o
CO •
0 0
• 1
O CM
o
o
V
0
t-
o
CO O
O 1
. 03
a o
0
o
CO
o
^t •
H o
0 ,
0 0
0
o
o
CM
0
CM •
.H 0
O 1
0 0
o
o
a bo
(t) CJ
0) nj
a a:
CO
CD
o
o
1
IP
o
0
o
0
r-t
J O
O i
0 H
o
0
^.^
CM
I-O O
r H *
r-i O
O i
O CM
o
a
o
o
o
r- o
r-l O
O (
• o
O CO
o
o
o
fl W>
_,.
£"*•«
o>
,_!
i-,
*c
t
3
CO
o
•H •
!N O
O 1
• r-t
o o
o
V
CO
o
o
o
CM 0
O I
O CM
0 O
. 0
0 O
o
V
r-
0
o
d- o
0 1
O CO
• 0
o o
o
o
V
CO
CM O
.-1 I
• CM
o o
o
0
V
o
b
(N O
0 1
• CO
O H
o
0
Ol
H
o
o *
r~{ 0
O s
i •»-
o b
o
o
in
.H
o
o o
O !
- CM
O CD
0
o
IP?
.1-
r-
O)
•^
•j
*"3
i?
K
1
CM
o
o
o
o
1
03
o
0
o
CM
o
o
•o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
o
1
s
^
CD
f J
o
o
1
bO
3
o
r-t
o
o
V
in
o
o
o
V
CM
o
o
o
o
1
CM
o
o
0
o
V
CO
o
o
o
o
V
1
CM
o
o
o
0
V
CO
o
o
o
i
10
o
0
0
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
V
in
o
„
r-i
1
CM
o
0
o
V
CM
o
0
o
1
CM
o
o
o
V
bO
CO
o
+J
CO
§
1
rH
a)
tj
5
•X
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |