905R78100
00623
7801
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
MENOMONBB RIVER
PILOT WATERSHED STUDY
SUMMARY PILOT
WATERSHED 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 JOINT COMMISSION
POLLUTION FROM LAND USE
ACTIVITIES REFERENCE GROUP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1978
-------
-------
1. AKNOWLEDGMENT TO SPONSORING AGENCIES
The personnel of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study wish to
express their sincere thanks to the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission,
its Windsor Office Personnel and the Pollution from Land Use Reference Group
for the high quality of organization of the Program devoted to an examination
of the implications of land use and land use practices on the Great Lakes. A
special debt of gratitude is owed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for financial support and to its officials in the Chicago Region V Office who
have provided the freedom for thought and experimentation in an extremely
convivial atmosphere essential for the success of an international cooperative
program of this magnitude.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
MENOMONEE RIVER
PILOT WATERSHED STUDY
SUMMARY PILOT
WATERSHED 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 JOINT COMMISSION
POLLUTION FROM LAND USE
ACTIVITIES REFERENCE GROUP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1978
la
-------
3. DISCLAIMER
Until such time that PLUARG releases the document for general dis-
tribution it will remain confidential, except as used by PLUARG, the
Core Group and the Synthesis and Extrapolation Work Group for the pre-
paration of other I.J.C. reports.
The study discussed in this document was carried out as part of the
efforts of the Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group, an
organization of the International Joint Commission, established under the
Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. Funding was
provided through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Findings and
conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Reference Group or its recommendations to the Commission.
ii
-------
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO PROJECT PERSONNEL
The principal investigators of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study
are indebted to the following personnel for maintaining the essential flexi-
bility of thought to accomplish the objectives of a program under continuous
scrutiny and hence subject to improvement through changes initiated by Study
personnel, the International Reference Group members and the personnel in
all facets of the PLUARG program:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
D. Balsiger
C. Conway
R. ^Bannerman
K. Meives
D. Becker
D. Misterek
T. Bokelman
M. Swanson
University of Wisconsin System Water Resources Center
M. Anderson A. Andres K. Baun
J. Delfino A. Dong C. Eisen
J. Goodrich-Mahoney G. Herold F. Madison
V. Novotny (Marquette G. Peterson (Penn F. Scarpace
University) State U.)
T. Stolzenberg
E. Brodsky
P. Enrolling
B. Meyers
G. Simsiman
E. Tilson
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
P. Clavette L. Kawatski R. Videkovich S. Walesh
iii
-------
5. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page .Ho..
1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO SPONSORING AGENCIES i
2. TITLE PAGE ia
^ 3. DISCLAIMER ii
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
5. TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
6. LIST OF TABLES v
f 7. LIST OF FIGURES vii
8. SUMMARY ..... 1
9. INTRODUCTION 3
10. DATA COLLECTION METHODS 6
f 11. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 7
A. Land Use 3
B. Key Parameters 13
C. Loading Data 14
^ i. Loading calculation 15
ii. Monitored annual, seasonal and unit area loading data . . 17
iii.Rainfall/runoff relationships 29
iv. Relationship of pollutant load to water load 31
A v. Simulated unit loading data & hazard ranking land uses. . 33
D. Physical Characteristics of the Watershed 40
E. Characterization of soils and Bottom and Suspended
Sediments. ... 44
12. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION FOR THE MENOMONEE
^ RIVER WATERSHED 52
A. LANDRUN Model 53
i. The LANDRUN model and its applicability
to watershed studies 54
A B. Groundwater 56
C. Atmospheric Monitoring 60
D. Land Cover Classification from Aerial Imagery 61
E. Biological Monitoring 63
£ 13. RELATIONSHIP TO PLUARG OBJECTIVES 64
14. REMEDIAL MEASURES RECOMMENDATIONS 66
iv
-------
6. LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1 Urban and rural land use inventories for the 9
Menomonee River watershed in 1970 and 1975 as
determined by the S.E. Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission.
2 Menomonee River watershed monitoring stations 11
with areas for each land use catgeory in 1975.
3 Event and total loadings at the mouth (70th St.) 18
of the Menomonee River (413005).
4 Event unit loadings of suspended solids at main 19
stem river stations.
5 Event unit loadings of total P at main stem 20
river stations.
6 Average of seasonal event unit loadings for sus- 21
pended solids at main stem river stations from
1975 to 1977.
7 Average of seasonal event unit loadings for total 21
P at main stem river stations from 1975 to 1977.
8 Event suspended solids unit loadings at the pre- 22
dominant land use stations.
9 Event total P unit loadings at the predominant 23
land use stations.
10 Event lead unit loadings at the predominant land 24
use stations.
11 Point source loadings to the Menomonee River, kg. 26
12 Loadings and relative contributions from nonpoint 28
and point sources of pollution for suspended
solids and total P at 70th St. Station (413005).
13 Average runoff with rainfalls of various amounts. 30
13a Cumulative parameter load by cumulative water 32
load, % of total discharged.
14 Ranking factors (potential erodibility at source) 34
for the land use categories designated in the
Menomonee River watershed.
-------
Table No. Title Page No.
15 Relative degree of hazard, loading factors, loadings 35
at river mouth for total suspended solids, total
phosphorus and lead for various categories of land
use in the Menomonee River basin untilizing unit
load values at the 70th St. (413005) monitoring
station.
16 Soil types and physical characteristics of the 48 41
subwatersheds of the Menomonee River watershed for
use in the LANDRUN model.
17 Particle size distribution and total P concentrations ^5
in various size fractions of soils and bottom and sus-
pended sediments in the Menomonee River watershed.
18 Metal concentrations in various size fractions of soils 46
and suspended sediments in the Menomonee River watershed.
19 Particle size distribution of suspended sediment in the "*'
Menomonee River watershed.
20 Distribution of total P and Pb 'in various size fractions ^9
in soils and sediment.
21 Dispersability, by shaking, of soils in the Menomonee ->0
River watershed.
22 Dispersability of clay-size particles by shaking and -*1
ratio of clay-size particles dispersed by shaking and
ultrasonic treatment.
23 Groundwater loadings in 1976-77. 58
vi
-------
7. LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.No. Title Page No.
1 Station locations within the Menomonee 10
River watershed.
2 Simulated suspended sediment unit loadings 36
for principal land use categories at the
mouth (70th St.) of the Menomonee River
(413005).
3 Simulated total P unit loadings for principal 37
land use categories at the mouth (70th St.) of
the Menomonee River (413005).
4 Simulated lead unit loadings for principal 38
land use categories at the mouth (70th St.)
of the Menomonee River (413005).
5 Schematic conceptual flow diagram of the 55
LANDRUN model.
6 Groundwater and surface water discharges for 57
the Menomonee River watershed in the fall of
1976.
VII
-------
8. SUMMARY
The Menomonee River watershed has been instrumented to allow main-stem
and tributary monitoring at 15 locations. Furthermore, three of these and
seven other study sites have been delineated which permit collection and
analysis of drainage water from areas of predominantly one land use. An
overland flow model (LANDRUN) has been developed, calibrated and verified
for three subwatersheds in the Menomonee River basin. Detailed land use
inventories (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission — SEWRPC)
are available for 1970 and 1975 allowing a capability for examining the
impact of changing land use patterns on pollutional loadings. A prediction
of land use changes planned to the year 2000 will be used to expand the time
frame for the interpretation of changing land use patterns as they affect
Great Lakes pollution. The land use inventory allows mapping in 42 land-
use categories but these have been consolidated into 13 categories for
the PLUARG investigation.
The watershed has been segregated into 48 subwatersheds and land use
and physical characteristics information is available for each subwater-
shed. The subwatersheds, average 800 ha (range 500 to 1,600 ha) in size,
are being evaluated for pollutional hazard by the LANDRUN model allowing
principal pollutional sources in the watershed to be delineated. In the
Menomonee — as in most other urban areas in the Great Lakes basin — stream
channel modifications have taken place to allow rapid transference of
water to the lake to decrease flood hazards. Because of this, the importance
of pollutant transmission, transformations and delivery ratios in the stream
are perhaps not important in the Menomonee River watershed and other urban
areas inx the Great Lakes basin.
Data is presented on annual, seasonal and unit area loadings at the
river mouth (70th St.) and at each of the mainstem monitoring stations and
a stratified random sampling model enhanced by a ratio estimator is discussed
for calculating loadings. For those areas predominantly in a single land
use, unit area loadings are presented as is the relative distribution of
point and diffuse sources of pollution at the river mouth. The principal
parameters of concern in the Menomonee River watershed are suspended sediment,
total phosphorus and lead since loadings of other toxic elements and organic
materials are extremely low.
Simulation data on loadings at the river mouth arising from each of
-------
the 13 land use categories has been determined and a hazard scale for land
use has been developed. A discussion of the physical characteristics and
of the composition and particle size distribution of soils and bottom and
suspended sediments in the basin is presented. The importance of this
information in the development of remedial management strategies is
presented and an evaluation of particle size distribution and dispersibility
of sediments is used to shed some light on pollutant availability in the
river and lakes.
Quality of groundwater in the basin has been measured and pollutional
inputs from atmospheric sources have been evaluated. Areal imagery
has been utilized to determine ground cover in the basin and the transfer-
ability of this technique to other urban centers has been tested. Some
attempts to establish a biological indicator of pollution have had only
limited success.
The importance of the Menomonee River watershed data in meeting the
goals of PLUARG are discussed and the extent to which Menomonee River
watershed information and methodology is transferable to other sectors of
the Great Lakes basin is realistically evaluated.
No remedial measures alternatives are discussed in this document to
avoid violating the agreement with the IJC that remedial measures will
not be made public until the PLUARG final report has been filed with the
Commission.
-------
9. 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 recom-
mend 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 (PLUARG).
The Reference Group developed a study program which consisted of four
major tasks. Task A is devoted to the collection and assessment of manage-
ment and research information and in its later stages, to the critical
analysis of implications of potential recommendations. Task B requires
the preparation of a land use inventory, largely from existing data, and
secondly, the analysis of trends in land use patterns and practices.
Task C is the 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
devoted to obtaining supplementary information on the impacts of materials
to the boundary waters, their effect on water quality and their signifi-
cance in these waters in the future and under alternative management
schemes.
The Task C portion of the Detailed Study Plan includes intense
investigations of 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 Task C Technical Committee and a Synthesis and
Extrapolation Work Group have been established by PLUARG and assigned
primary responsibility for developing and conducting the pilot watershed
studies. The Menomonee River watershed was selected for the study of the
effects of urban-residential land uses undergoing rapid change.
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 conducting the intensive
study of water quality-land use relations in the Menomonee River watershed.
The principal functions of these agencies are:
a. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: The WDNR is the
lead agency and as such, administers the total study including
coordination of activities associated with the Menomonee River
Study and submission of reports to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and PLUARG. WDNR also provides laboratory
support for the monitoring program to be conducted in the
Menomonee River Basin.
b. University of Wisconsin System: The UW-WRC has conducted
special studies of selected land use activities and provided
interpretation and assessment of monitoring data through develop-
ment of land use-water quality models.
c. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission: The
SEWRPC has provided background inventories on land use activities
and projected land use patterns from its current Menomonee River
planning program and developed a computer file of all data and
information applicable to the study.
The 35,200 ha Menomonee River watershed is located in the south-
eastern corner of Wisconsin and discharges to Lake Michigan at the City
of Milwaukee. This highly urbanized watershed encompasses all or parts of
four counties and 17 cities, villages and towns and currently contains a
resident population of about 400,000 persons (12 persons/ha). Existing
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 being converted from rural to urban land use,
as reflected by scattered urban development. 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
2.2 m"/sec but flood flows as high as 500 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 with mean daily temperatures ranging
from -6°C in January to 21°C in July. Annual average precipitation is
79 cm (100 cm of snow).
-------
Several key factors entered into selection of the Menoraonee River
watershed. Not only is the watershed highly urbanized, but the watershed
and contiguous lands contain a full range of urban uses including low to
high density residential areas, extensive commercial and industrial tracts
and a considerable amount of land devoted to transportation facilities.
The high degree of diversity of urban land uses in this watershed is
reflected by the existence of combined and separate sewer systems. A
dynamic dimension is added by the rapid development occurring in the uppet
quarter of the basin where agricultural land is being converted to urban
land uses. A unique facet of the Menomonee watershed stems from the
?
proposed plan to remove all municipal point sources of pollution by 1983,
at which time the effects of land use on water quality will arise almost
entirely from diffuse sources. Thus, of the major watersheds chosen for
intensive study in the PLUARG program, the Menomonee watershed serves as
the focus of investigations on the impact of urban land uses on water
quality.
-------
10. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The data collection techniques used to investigate the pollutant
contribution to surface and groundwater from land use activities rely on
monitoring the amounts of certain constituents in surface water runoff,
groundwater and the atmosphere (geohydrochemical cycle). Monitoring in
some phases of the study were initiated in 1975 and all phases were
operational by 1976.
The watershed has been instrumented to allow mainstem and tributary
monitoring at 15 locations (12 of the stations are automated and three
are grab sampling stations). Furthermore, three of these and seven
other study sites have been delineated which permit collection and
analysis of drainage water from areas predominantly in one land use.
Seventy-five runoff events were monitored at the river stations and 57
at the specific study sites during 1976 and this effort is continuing
through 1977. Base flow has been monitored to determine the relative
significance of base flow to event loadings. Eight rainfall gauges in
the watershed are positioned to allow correlation of rainfall intensities
with measured pollutant loadings.
Dry and wet atmospheric fallout of material is being measured in the
watershed. Rainfall is collected in Wong automatic samplers and analyzed
for nutrients and toxic metals. Two cascade impactors are used to obtain
particle size segregation of dry fallout which provides some limited
information on sources of atmospheric pollutants.
Thirty-eight observational wells have been established in the water-
shed as part of the groundwater study. Monthly water samples are collected
and analyzed for dissolved nutrients and metals. The groundwater flow
system has been defined in the vicinity of the Menomonee River and an
assessment of pollutant movement from the river to groundwater or from
groundwater to the river has been made.
The data collected allows sources of pollutants in the watershed to
be delineated using the LANDRUN overland flow model. The data also is
used to calibrate models to assist in the assessment of the factors which
principally influence pollutant loadings to Lake Michigan.
-------
11. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
This section consists of data summaries that are generated from the
Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study. These data are generally available
in each of the Watershed study groups to allow comparison of results to be
made between watersheds. Data assessment is by no means complete at this
time and information that is to be added in the final summary report is
indicated in many of the tables. The data summaries are presented in log-
ical order as follows: land use and land use practices; key parameters
that are identified to be the main land-derived pollutants in the Great
Lakes Basin, annual and seasonal loading data from the river mouth and
predominant land use areas; physical characteristics of the watershed in-
cluding soil type, slope and imperviousness; and particle size distribu-
tion and composition of soils and sediment in the watershed.
-------
A. Land Use
The characteristics of the land surface within a watershed are a
major factor in determining the type, volume and timing of diffuse source
pollution. The results of a 1970 and 1975 land use inventory for the
Menomonee River watershed are summarized in the form of 13 aggregated land
use categories in Table 1. Earlier discussions with principle investiga-
tors on Task C projects had indicated that a ten land use category would be
adopted throughout the Great Lakes basin. However, additional categories
were required within the Menomonee River watershed to more completely
describe the land uses within the basin. Eleven of these aggregated land
use categories for 1970 data are used in the LANDRUN model to develop jt
relative degree of hazard ranking f^ox_aus4^nd^,.£alids.,™.tU3t.al..4^o^piuaoaa.
and lead loadings, for the watershed as described in section 11C.
During 1975 approximately 49% of the land surface of the watershed
was devoted to urban land use with the dominate land use being commercial.
Within the rural land use, row crops are the dominante land use.
Urban and rural land use are not uniformly distributed over the
watershed. Urban land uses are predominantly concentrated in the downstream
or southern half of the watershed whereas rural land uses are found
primarily in the upstream or northern half of the watershed.
The Menomonee River watershed has undergone a drastic change in land
use over the last 20 years. From 1950 to 1970, a 42% increase in population
was accompanied by a 156% increase in urban land use. It is expected that
development will continue in the watershed but hopefully predicated on plan-
ning recommendations of the Southeastern Regional Planning Commission.
Other land factors such as, soil type, slope, imperviousness and the
type and degree of land management also affect the diffuse source pollution
loads. These physical characteristics of the watershed are presented in
Section 11D.
Fig. 1 and Table 2 show the location and associated land uses for the
monitoring stations within the watershed. This table 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 have been aggregated
under one land use breakout since the land uses were not deter-
mined for each of the stations. Summation of the individual land use
-------
Table 1. Urban and rural land use inventories for the Menomonep River watershed in 1970 and 1975 as
determined by the S. E. Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Land use category*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Industrial
Commercial
High-density
residential
Medium-density
residential
Low-density
residential
Land under )
development )
SUB TOTAL - Urban
Row crops
Pastures and
small grains
Forested lands
and woodlots
Wetlands
Feedlots
Landfills and
dumps
Water areas
SUB TOTAL - Rural
TOTAL - Watershed"1"
Type of land use
URBAN LAND
Manufacturing and extractive
Retail, wholesale, service,
transportation, communication
and utilities**
Multi-family and mobile homes
Two-family and 50% of single
family dwellings
50% of single family dwellings
and all farm buildings except
f eedlots
Residential
All other types
RURAL LAND
90% of cropland and rotation
pasture
10% of cropland and rotation
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
Area,
1970
USES
588
6,612
332
4,035
3,556
824
199***
16,146
USES
10,375
5,649
1,677
997
39
101
145
18,698
35,129
ha
1975
612
6,542
429
4,493
4,174
711
205
17,166
9,060
5,693
1,970
1,070
32
120
185
19,137
35,296
Distribution, %
1970
1.68
18.8
0.94
11.5
10.1
2.34
0.57
46.0
29.5
16.1
4.77
2.84
0.11
0.29
0.41
54.0
100
1975
1.74
18.5
1.22
12.7
11.8
2.02
0.58
48.6
25.7
16.1
5.58
3.03
0.09
0.34
0.53
51.4
100
*I,and use definitions will be compared with PLUARG definitions when available.
**ln the Menomonee watershed most governmental and institutional buildings are associated with large,
open parklands and are included in Category 8. In other watersheds where these buildings are associ-
ated with a commercial district, they are better included in Category 2.
***Estimated by taking ratio of residential to other types of land under development in 1975.
The 1975 data are more accurate because hectare-sized cells were summed; 1970 data were based on
0.25 mi2 cells.
-------
10
463001
413005
413010
413009
683090
683089
413615
413004
/ 413014
MILWAUKEE 413013
413012
Seale:
Mi 1 es
Fig. 1. Station locations within the llenotnonee River watershed.
9 indicates stations monitoring drainage areas of multi-land
uses and A indicates stations monitoring drainage areas of
predominate land uses.
-------
Table 2. Henomonee River watershed monitoring stations- with areas for each land use category In 1975
11
STORE!
Number
413012
413013
413014
413004
413009
413005
413006
413007
683001
413008
683002
673001
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413034
413616
Land use category,** ha
Location
Harbor at Hwy. 32 bridge )
Menomonee River (M.R.) at ,
2nd St bridge '.
M.R. at N. 13th St bridge )
M.R. above 27th St at
Falk Corporaton
M.R. at Hawley Rd
M.R. at 70th St bridge
Honey Creek 140 m above
confluence with M.R.
Underwood Creek above
Hwy 45 off North Ave
M.R. at 124th St (Hwy.M)
Little M.R. at Appleton
Ave (Hwy. 175)
M.R. at Pilgrim Rd
(Hwy. YY)
M.R. at River Lane Rd
(Hwy. F)
Donges Bay Rd, Mequon
Schoonmaker Creek at
Vliet St
Noyes Creek at 91st St
City of W. Allis at 124th
St and Greenfield Ave
Village of Elm Grove,
ditch at Underwood Pkwy
Timmerman Airport,
manhole //6
Stadium interchange 1-94,
manhole #120
Brookfleld Shopping
Center
City of Wauwatosa, off
Ferrick St
All is-Chalmers Corp.,
W. Allis
1
60
133
0.04
105
24
76
106
26
27
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
25
38
2
509
800
63
1,340
778
1,013
848
343
342
278
56
48
193
31
20
140
35
40
63
11
3
41
30
3
94
91
53
11
46
12
25
1
1
21
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
102
346
64
595
673
991
858
167
327
128
83
70
88
0
0
0
11
5
8
0
5
42
193
31
522
590
984
887
168
355
171
100
48
81
127
131
1
0
0
0
0
6
7
4
0.
27
49
145
302
114
130
56
34
3
15
6
6
0
0.
0
0
0
7
0
0
22 0
9
22
210
2,150
910
1,706
2,669
1,371
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
8
85
293
21
1,002
517
1,126
982
388
439
545
215
9
127
56
5
0
18
16
14
0
9
0
0
0
7
14
184
294
182
336
515
210
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
9
138
164
99
331
281
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.4
3
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
14
0
2
13
40
22
13
1
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
28
15
0
34
4
12
31
7
16
22
14
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot;
a
1,8
1:
3,7
2,/i
4,9
6,6.
2 , 4'
4,0;
4,7
2,r
i ;
5!
2;
If
u
t
f,
11
It
*A11 stations are automatic sampling and continuous flow monitoring except station number 413004 which is automatic
sampling only; station number 413009, a stormwater monitoring station which has automatic sampling and continuous flow,
depending on flow conditions; and the harbor stations, numbers 413012, 413013 and 413014 are grab sampling stations.
**Land use categories are defined in Table 1.
-------
12
totals for the first 15 stations will approximately equal the total area of
the watershed. The remaining stations are contained within the drainage
areas of the first group. The drainage areas of the 15 mainstem stations
range in size from a maximum of 6,658 ha to a minimum of 179 ha with an
average of approximately 3,200 ha, allowing an initial segmentation of the
basin into 13 subbasins.
-------
13
B. Key Parameters
Following a series of meetings with participants of the pilot water-
shed projects and personnel of the EPA laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota,
SEWG identified two major types of pollution arising from nonpoint sources
in the Great Lakes Basin, namely, nutrients and sediment which accelerate
eutrophication of the lakes and toxic materials which constitute a public
health hazard and a hazard to the biological communities of the lakes.
The basic guidelines used in selecting key parameters for these types of
pollution are (1) the pollutant must be present in significant amounts
in the watershed and (2) it must be amenable to remedial control measures.
The key parameters selected include suspended sediment; total phosphorus;
toxic metals primarily Pb, Cd, Cu, and Zn; and toxic organic materials
principally pesticides, PCB, and phenols. In the Menomonee River water-
shed study, other metals (Fe, Mn, Al, Ni, Cr, As, and Se) have been
monitored, however, some of them are present in low concentrations while
others do not pose any health hazard. Pesticides, PCB, and phenols have
been measured but then concentrations are generally below detection
limits making quantification of loadings difficult. Pesticides may be a
local problem and the impact of their usage on the water quality of the
Great Lakes can be evaluated from the data obtained from the Mill Creek
pesticide study in Michigan.
Thus, the parameters deemed to be of greatest importance in the
Menomonee River watershed are: suspended sediment, total phosphorus and
lead.
-------
14
C. Loading Data
The assessment of the magnitude of pollution from land use activites
is based on the determination and evaluation of the loadings of key para-
meters from the various monitoring stations within the watershed. Avail-
able loading calculation methods are briefly evaluated and the process
for applying a stratified random sampling method is discussed.
Annual and seasonal total and unit loadings were calculated using a
stratified random sampling model enhanced by a ratio estimator. Annual
and seasonal total loadings values for the river mouth station and annual
and seasonal unit loading values for the multiple and predominant single
land use subwatersheds are summarized in tabular form. Point source con-
tribution from the four treatment facilities, the only major points sources
within the watershed were determined and the loads were subtracted from
the appropriate diffuse source loading data to determine the true diffuse
source loading.
The loading values will be used, concomitantly with the LANDRUN model,
to develop a relative hazard ranking scale for 11 land use categories within
the Menomonee River watershed.
-------
15
i. Loading calculation
The term "hazardous land use" is relative, being defined as a land
use from which significantly greater amounts of a pollutant are derived.
It is possible to calculate pollutant loads from land use activities in
a number of ways, however, it must be kept in mind that the estimates should
be unbiased, that is, on the average correct and capable of being statistically
compared, summed and assessed. Consequently, the method of calculating loads
should a) be consistent with the assumptions associated with the sampling
schemes that were used, and b) enable an estimate of the variance associated
with each load to be determined (to permit a statistical comparison).
Initially, loads for the Menomonee River watershed were calculated
using an "integration" method whereby loading values were possible only for
events for which concentration data were available. This "model" linearly
interpolated between measured concentration data points in order to assign
a concentration for each measured instantaneous flow. For events during
which extensive concentration information is available, this interpolation
routine can be a reasonable approximation of concentration variation over
time. For events with limited concentration information, the interpolation
routine can introduce unsystematic (and unquantifiable) variation. For
events with flow records for which there is no concentration information,
the integration method is not usable.
John Clark, IJC statistician, proposed (March, 1977, PLUARG Task C
Handbook Amendments) that a stratified random sampling model enhanced by a
ratio estimator be used for load calculations. The assumptions of the model
proposed by Clark are: a) simple random sampling of water quality withing
nonoverlapping subpopulations or strata, and b) use of available supplemental
population flow information for the several strata (rather than instantaneous
flows only for those times when water quality samples were taken). This model
was used in a manner consistent with the sampling schemes to produce unbiased
loading values with standard error terms and the degrees of freedom associated
with these estimates. In addition, the 95% confidence interval for each load
was calculated (using the form x ± t s(x), where x is the estimated loading
value, s(x) is the standard error, and t is the value from the student's t table
for the calculated degree of freedom for a 95% confidence interval).
-------
16
The statistical technique of stratifying subsample data was applied
in the calculation of loads in order to provide more precision in the
loading estimate for a particular parameter by clustering units which are
homogeneous in terms of concentration of that parameter. The underlying I
assumption is that the population of all water quality concentrations of
the parameter of interest can be more accurately represented as the sum
of subpopulations, rather than as a single, homogeneous population. The,
determination of strata was critical, since these strata reflected the
hypothesized (or observed) subpopulations of water quality concentrations.
Using a stratification scheme which included: (1) season, (2) event
versus nonevent within each season, and (3) high flow versus low flow times
within the events, loading estimates were calculated for the sampling
stations.
-------
17
ii. Monitored annual, seasonal and unit areg loading data
Annual and seasonal river mouth loadings of suspended sediment, total
phosphorus and lead determined at the 70th St. Station (413005), in 1975,
1976 and part of 1977 are presented in Table 3. The spring season was
determined by the period of high flows resulting from snowmelt and was
March 14 to June 1 in 1975, February 2 to June 1 in 1976 and March 3 to
June 1 in 1977; other dates defining summer, fall and winter were determined
by solar demarcation. River mouth loadings of suspended sediment and total
phosphorus were invariably higher in spring and summer than in fall and
winter. Seasonal loadings varied considerably between the years, nonethe-
less annual loadings of suspended sediment and total phosphorus were
similar for 1975 and 1976. Seasonal variability in loadings could be ac-
counted for by differences in rainfall distribution. The largest portion
of the annual loadings of suspended sediment and total phosphorus was gen-
erated during events. This leads to the conclusion that the point source
contribution of suspended sediment was insignificant and of total phosphorus
was small.
Loading values at the river mouth will be used to determine delivery
ratios for the watershed. In this context, delivery ratio is the ratio of
the amount of material arriving at the river mouth compared with the amount
of material generated at the source. The primary significance of the river
mouth loadings is to allow an assessment of their in-lake effects.
The river mouth loadings represent an integration of all pollutants for
the total range of land use activities in the basin. As such, these data
are of no value in defining those areas, land uses or land-use practices
which are of particular hazard to Lake Michigan. The seasonal unit area
loadings at each of the main stem river stations (Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7) and
at those stations draining an area of predominantly one land use (Tables 8,
9 and 10) allowed an initial segregation of the watershed into 13 subwater-
sheds of average area of 2,700 ha.
Relatively high annual loadings of suspended sediment were found at
stations 413006 and 413008 in 1975, 1976 and 1977. Similarly, total phos-
phorus loadings were high at stations 413005, 413006 and 683001 in 1976 and
at stations 413005, 413006 and 413009 in 1977. Station 683007 is a main
-------
O -3"
01 ON
O m
^C LO
O O O O
O O O O
oooo
O CN
O O
O O
O -H
O O
O O
O CN
CO CN r- CM
O O
O O
O ON
O O
O O
o m
mm o CN
O O
O O
O 0>
o o o o
o o o o
o --t o m
m m T— i
o o o o
o o o o
O r-t O r-
co CO r- CT\ r-j
O 00 ON in ^O
j O r^- ON -3- O
O C O O
oooo
o ^c o o
m m
m i—i
O O
o o
OO
O ON
-------
19
Table 4. Event unit loadings of suspended solids at main stem river stations
STORET
number
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
Loadings, kg /ha
Spring
36.7
43.2
34.2
238
286
288
127
i.d.
i.d.
12.7
36.6
136
467
133
835
230
130
266
1.6
7.5
44.5
95.1
26.2
129
40.6
34.4
36.4
(4.5)*
(7.
(21.
5)
4)
(61.7)
(74.
(72.
(29.
(3.
(11.
(36.
(131)
(42.
(149)
(25.
(35.
(65.
(0.
(4.
(15.
(26.
(11.
(29.
(8.
(6.
(28.
6)
1)
6)
8)
4)
8)
7)
7)
4)
8)
6)
6)
0)
2)
2)
7)
2)
6)
5)
3
44
71
212
178
147
141
i.d
13
0
1
6
58
37
76
36
30
10
13
39
80
180
84
452
168
87
97
Summer
.6
.1
.5
.
.3
.2
.6
.0
.1
.9
.7
.0
.3
.0
.5
.1
.6
.6
.0
(0.8)
(19.2)
(12.8)
(50.3)
(55.7)
(24.4)
(18.0)
(9.3)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(2.7)
(47.6)
(27.2)
(15.1)
(10.5)
(7.8)
(9.0)
(9.0)
(9.9)
(17.2)
(35.2)
(37.8)
(62.7)
(28.7)
(49.8)
(26.9)
Fall
1975
2.0
6.8
4.3
46.4
2.8
45.9
14.3
i.d.
i.d.
1976
0.06
0.1
0.4
1.4
7.4
10.0
4.2
i.d.
i.d.
1977
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
(5
(1
(1
(22
(9
(14
(4
(0
(0
(0
(0
(6
(1
(1
.7)
.7)
• 2)
•5)
.1)
.7)
.1)
.02)
.1)
.1)
.5)
.1)
• 9)
.7)
42
94
110
497
466
480
282
i.d
i.d
13
38
143
527
178
922
271
160
276
15
46
125
275
110
581
209
122
133
Total
.3 (6.1)
.1 (20.8)
(24.7)
(81.0)
(92.8)
(77.3)
(35.0)
.
•
.0 (3.8)
.3 (11.5)
(36.9)
(136)
(49.5)
(150)
(27.7)
(36.3)
(66.4)
.1 (9.0)
.6 (10.7)
(22.5)
(43.4)
(39.8)
(68.7)
(29.8)
(49.8)
(36.9)
* () 95% confidence interval
i.d. Data insufficient for the determination of a seasonal load
-------
20
Table 5, Event unit loadings of total P at main stem river stations
STORE!
number
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
673001
683002
683001
413008
413007
413006
413005
413009
413004
Loadings,
Spring
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0.072
0.066
0.50
0,46
0.31
0.64
0.46
i
0.24
0.004
0.016
0.085
0.068
0.040
0.28
0.055
0.24
0.050
(0.012)*
(0.043)
(0.11)
(0.15)
(0.16)
(0.48)
(0.062)
.d.
(0.063)
(0.004)
(0.007)
(0.024)
(0.022)
(0.025)
(0,17)
(0.013)
(0.047)
(0.029)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
kg/ha
Summer
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i.
.004
.004
.030
.001
.006
.19
.065
.16
.018
.10
.061
.16
.13
.11
.49
.21
.54
.19
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.022)
(0.000)
(0.000)
(0.12)
(0.014)
(0.078)
(0.000)
(0.043)
(0.011)
(0.028)
(0.042)
(0.054)
(0.11)
(0.042)
(0.45)
(0.079)
1975
Fall
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
1976
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1977
.002
.000
.003
.001
.004
.048
.017
i
.017
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
.d.
(0.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
.d.
000)
000)
000)
000)
000)
009)
005)
002)
Total
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0.077
0.070
0.54
0.46
0.32
0.88
0.54
i.d
0.27
0.11
0.077
0.24
0.20
0.15
0.77
0.26
0.77
0.24
(0.013)
(0.043)
(0.11)
(0.15)
(0.16)
(0.48)
(0.064)
.
(0.063)
(0.043)
(0.012)
(0.036)
(0.046)
(0.050)
(0.20)
(0.044)
(0.45)
(0.083)
* () 95% confidence interval
i.d. Data insufficient for the determination of a seasonal load
-------
21
T;ibLe 6.
Ave
:rage of seasonal event unit loadings for suspended solids at main stem river stations from 1975 i,, }>'>/
:• i'OK ET
r, ' -ml/or
', j 3011
413006
4*3001
'« I '.008
-tJ30iO
4 ! .3004
-•-1>007
413005
'« 1 1009
,-•81001
-73002
c.73001
Loadi
842
417
304
267
157
15.1
148
133
82
71
29
17
Spring
ng, kg/ha
1.137)*
(55. 9)
(44.0)
U8.9)
(28.9)
(35.01
(28,6)
(1.3.3)
.0(18.0)
.7(15.0)
.1 (4.8)
.0 (2.0)
No. of
years
3
3
2
3
3
;
3
3
•/
3
3
3
Summer
Loading, kg/ha
390
225
150
147
115
100
58.
53.
52.
39.
28.
5.
(163)
(22.8)
(24.1)
(44.0)
(11.8)
(23.8)
9(25.2)
5(14.0)
7 (7.1)
2(11.7)
3 (7.2)
8 (3.0)
No. of
years
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
T
3
3
3
3
Loading
69.7
33.2
27.9
23.9
13.3
9.3
5.1
3.4
2.4
1.0
1.0
Fall
, kg/ha
(49.8)
(25.0)
(7.4)
(11.3)
(9.3)
(2.1)
(3.1)
(0.8)
(0.6)
(2.8)
(0.3)
No. of
years
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
Loading
1,301
670
441
344
338
257
253
218
141
127
60.
23.
Total
No. of
, kg/ha years
(214) 3
(60.8) 3
(55.2) j
(45.4) )
(53.4) 3
(17.9) 3
(37.2) (
(38.0) !
(30.5)
(16.6) j
8 (8.6) i
8 (4.0) >,
* O 95% confidence interval
Average- of- seisonal event unit loadings for total P at main stem river stations from 1975 to 1977
Spring
STORE!
IL, nber
; • jon
-.63001
4 i 3006
'-33001
M 5010
413008
-.1 3005
-'i i 3009
4) 3007
4 L3004
83002
-,?3001
Loading, kg/ ha
0.61 (0,
0.61 (0,
0.46 (0.
0.29 (0,
0.27 (0.
0.26 (0.
0.26 (0.
0.24 (0.
0.17 (0.
0.14 (0.
0.041(0.
0.033(0.
.19)*
.17)
-24)
,055)
,19)
,074)
.032)
034)
.075)
,034)
022)
007)
No. of
years
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Summer
No. of
Loading, kg/ha
0.36 (0
0.35 (0
0.34 (0,
0.24 (0.
0.14 (0,
0.10 (0
0.095(0,
0.072(0,
0.068(0,
0.058(0,
0.054(0,
0.032(0.
.22)
.23)
.080)
.095)
,022)
.039)
.016)
.030)
.021)
.027)
.021)
005)
years
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fall
No. of
Loading, kg/ha years
0.048
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.011
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
(0.048) 1
(0.019) 1
(0.002) 1
(0.005) 1
(0.008) 1
(0.000) 1
(0.000) 1
(0.000) 1
(0.000) 1
Total
Loading, kg/ha
0.98
0.85
0.68
0.58
0.52
0.41
0.39
0.33
0.26
0.24
0.094
0.073
(0.29)
(0.25)
(0-17)
(0.23)
(0.20)
(0.039)
(0.056)
(0.075)
(0.051)
(0.077)
(0.022)
(0.022)
No. of
years
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
i) 95% confidence interval
-------
22
Table 8. Event unit loadings* of suspended solids at the predominant
land use stations
STORE!
number
463001
413011
413010
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
4130304
Loadings, kg/ha
Spring
202 (58)**
260 (54)
144 (56)
406 (68)
2193 (406)
198 (28)
***
+
+
***
2.2 (3.1)
***
i.d.
72 (27)
130 (67)
2.4 (0.29)
0.94(0.22)
16 (11)
201 (70)
350 (349)
79 (30)
11 (10)
Summer
31 (8.0)
261 (48)
87 (17)
3.6 (7.0)
41 (8.5)
75 (47)
0.26 (0.24)
0 (0)
63 (9.3)
10 (7.9)
38 (13)
199 (78)
83 (34)
867 (487)
280 (123)
12 (5.9)
1.1(0,68)
72 (28)
697 (275)
195 (86)
1,625 (595)
47 (25)
Fall
1975
1.0 (0.30)
136 (100)
62 (123)
1976
0 (0)
3.3 (1.1)
4.6 (82)
0.04 (0.03)
0 (0)
1.2 (0.24)
18 (9.0)
6.0 (4.5)
4.0 (3.8)
1977
Winter
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0 (0)
3.6(2.
26 (11)
i.d.
i.d.
Total
234 (58)
657(116)
293 (61)
410 (68)
2237(405)
277 (56)
0.31 (0.24)
0 (0)
0) 67 (9.5)
54 (13)
46 (13)
203 (78)
* Blanks indicate data to be calculated.
** ( ) 95% confidence interval.
*** Not operational.
i.d. Data insufficient for the determination of a seasonal load.
+ Station operational for only part of the season.
-------
23
Table 9. Event unit loadings * of total P at the predominant land
use stations
STORET
number
463001
413011
413010
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
413034
Loadings, kg/ha
Spring
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0.61
1.16
0.29
***
(0
(0
(0
.17)**
.39)
.09)
Summer
i.d
i.d
i.d
0.01
0.07
0.12
.
•
(0
(0
(0
Fall Winter
1975
1976
.01)
.02)
.17)
0 (0)
+ 0 (0)
+
ft**
0.01
***
i.d.
0.06
0.24
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.19
0.26
0.45
0.02
(0.
(0
(0
01)
.02)
.37)
(0)
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
.001)
.02)
.07)
.22)
.08)
.02)
0.10
0.02
0.06
1.02
0.13
0.65
0.36
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.62
0.22
3.70
0.04
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
.02) 0
.01) 0
.04) 0
.21) 0
1977
.06)
.45)
.10)
.003)
.001)
.03)
.17)
.18)
.86)
.01)
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0 (0)
0.01(0.01)
0.02(0.02)
0 (0)
0 (0)
.01(0.002)
.01 (0.06)
.02 (0.02)
.03 (0.01)
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0(0)
0.01(0.003)
0.06 (0.01)
i.d.
i.d.
Total
i.
i.
i.
0.62
1.24
0.43
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.12
0.09
0.09
1.06
d.
d.
d.
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
.17)
.39)
.19)
.02)
.02)
.04)
.21)
* Blanks indicate data to be calculated.
** ( ) 95% confidence interval.
i.d. Data insufficient for the determination of a seasonal load.
*** Not operational.
+ Station operational for only part of the season.
-------
Table 10. Event unit loadings * of lead at the predominant land use
stations
24
STORE!
number
463001
413011
413010
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
463001
413010
413011
413625
683090
413614
413615
683089
413616
413034
* Blanks
** ( } 952
Loadings, kg/ha
Spring
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
6.2 (6.2)
181 (160)
61 (16)
***
+
+
Aft*
0.01 (0.02)
***
i.d.
4.68 (1.72)
253 (192)
0.01 (0.002)
0.001(0.003)
0.03 (0.01)
0.93 (0.32)
0.72 (0.59)
0.30 (0.12)
0.02 (0.06)
indicate data to
rnnfi'Hpnop infpi
Summer
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.33 (0.13)
0.04 (0.02)
0.10 (0.07)
1.42 (0.98)
8.2 (5.3)
283 (86)
147 (42)
0.01 (0.003)
0.003 (0.001)
0.09 (0.05)
3.67 (2.02)
0.44 (0.16)
6.65 (2.94)
0.07 (0.02)
be calculated.
-Vfll .
Fall Winter
1975
i.d. i.d.
i.d. i.d.
i.d. i.d.
1976
i.d. i.d.
i.d. i.d.
i.d. i.d.
0 (0) i.d.
0 (0) 0 (0)
0.004(0.001) 0.02 (0.01)
0.03 (0.04) 0.17 (0.06)
0.04 (0.04) i.d.
0.02 (0.02) i.d.
1977
Total
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
i.d.
0 (0)
0 (0)
0.35 (0.13)
0.24 (0.07)
0.16 (0.08)
1.44 (0.98)
*** Not operational.
+ Station operational for only part of the season.
-------
25
stem station situated just below two sewage treatment facilities. The
point source contributions to the upper watershed main stem stations,
namely, 673001, 683002 and 683001 were particularly significant in 1975
(Table 11) . Caution must, be excercised in evaluating the diffuse sources
of pollution of total phosphorus in these three sub-basisn, particularly
during fall and winter when flow in the river is low.
By examination of the loadings and land use activities in the 13 sub-
basins, those areas of particular hazard will be enumerated. The relative
contribution from the various land use types will be further evaluated by
sub-dividing the basin into 48 areas which will be assessed for pollutional
loadings utilizing the simulation model — LANDRUN. The model will also be
used to determine the effect of such factors as precipitation, topography,
degree of imperviousness, etc., on observed pollutional loading values.
Runoff event unit area loadings of suspended sediment, total phosphorus
and lead were determined for the 10 areas which were predominantly in a
single land use (Tables 8S 9 and 10; see Fig.l and Table 2 for land use
distribution and location). Most of the flow at each site occurs during
runoff events, Unit loading values varied considerably between seasons at
each station and wide range of loading values was observed amongst the
various sites (Tables 8, 9 and 10). Although no particular station stood
out as generating highest pollution loads for all seasons, the areas tri-
butary to stations for 413616, 413615, 683089, 413010 and 413011 usually had
higher unit loading values than the other sites. Those sites which have
natural drainage systems (463001, 413625 and 683090) always exhibited lower
pollution loads.
At some of the predominant single land use sites seasonal and annual
unit area loadings are comparable to or exceed unit area loadings at the
main stem sub-stations. For example, the unit area loading of suspended
sediment at station 683089 in the spring of 1977 exceeds unit area loadings
at all main stem sub-stations in the same season. Similarly, unit area load-
ings of total phosphorus at atation 413011 in the spring of 1976 exceeds
unit area loadings for all sub-basins and for the basin as a whole. On
completion of unit area loading data a relative hazard-ranking of different
land uses will provide a significant start to the development of alternative
remedial strategies.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
27
The relative distribution of point to dispersed sources of pollution
at the Menomonee River mouth is shown in Tables 11 and 12. It can be seen
that the contribution of suspended sediment from point sources is insignifi-
cant, but about one-third of the contribution of the total phosphorus arises
from point sources.
-------
28
Jj
o
g
•H
O
P.
4-1
O
CO
0)
U
J-l ^~v
3 m
0 O
CO O
CO
4-J rH
G •#
•rH ^— **
o
P. C
o
T3 -H
(3 4-1
4J
4-1 CO
a
•H 4J
O OT
P.
(3 43
O 4-1
£3 0
e ^
O 4J
M cd
y i
PM
CO
f3 rH
O cd
•H 4J
4J O
3 4J
•H 13
M C3
4-1 Cd
4-1
0 £3
0)
a) a
•H T3
4J 0)
rH
4-1
c
•H
0
CM
4-1
13
•rl
O
P,
a
o
£5
u-i
r^
CT»
H
4-1
a
•H
0
4-1
a
•H
O
P.
a
0
^
VJ
0
60
OJ
4-1
cd
u
o o o
0 O O
o o ^t
vo oo r**«
o t-~-
rH
r.
o o o
o o m
o o oo
A ft r.
O vO CT»
ON 00 H
VQ -^
M M
O> O^
f^»
o o o
o o o
o in oo
ft * A
O H
B^S
CO «•
rO p4
•H 0
rH -H
O 4J
CO 3
T3 -H
0) t-i l-i
•O >s 4J
M a -^ a
>, a) 60 o
^ P, r^ U
<"> CO
co B 3 M * OJ
60 CO >-, PM >
(3 • -^ -H
•H !-i iH 60 rH 4J
T3 CD cd ^i cd cd
Cd 4J 4-1 4J iH
o cd o o cu
HJ JS H H Cd
00
•
LO o r^
CN
tO ON CO
C^ O^ f***1
00
•
m o o
-------
29
iii. Rainfall/Runoff relationships
The effects of storm magnitude and the hydrographic features of
several predominant land use areas illustrated in Table 13. Eight stations,
for which both event hydrographs and corresponding on site rainfall infor-
mation exist, are arranged in decreasing order of percent connected imper-
viousness (as a percent of total area). The figures listed represent
only the percent of runoff generated, and do not consider the effects of
rainfall intensities or antecedent soil moisture conditions.
Considered station by station, there is not a consistent increase in
the percent of runoff with an increase in storm magnitude. For storms of
a given size however, there is a general decrease in percent runoff with
a decrease in the percent of connected imperviousness.
The above two observations indicate that runoff is generated largely
from impervious surfaces, and that rainfall onto pervious surfaces con-
tributes only a small amount to runoff. The implication supports manage-
ment practices that would reduce the effective amount of imperviousness,
thereby reducing the amount of runoff and the resultant downstream flood
hazard.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
31
iv. Relationship of pollutant load to water load
A frequently noted observation cited in the literature is the first
flush phenomenon, or the occurrence of highly concentrated pollutants in
the early stages of runoff. It has been most commonly noted for areas of
combined sewers, where the first overflows carry with them high concen-
trations of scoured or flushed deposits. We have defined first flush to
be when the percent of the total parameter load discharged at any point in
an event exceeds the corresponding percent of total water load discharged.
Analysis of the changes in concentrations of suspended solids (S.S.)
and total phosphorus (T.P.) over 53 events at seven stations indicates that
overall, concentrations do not shift consistently or dramatically. Con-
currently, we find onlv minimal evidence that a first flush of either 5.5
or T.P. occurs (Table 13a) . Further, on a site by site basis, there is no
apparent association between the degree of first flush and the magnitude
of the event, i.e., concentrations remained fairly constant even over
large storms.
Analysis between stations indicates that there is not a great deal
of variation between them, with the exceptions of stations 683089 and
413615. Although they both have a high percentage of connected imper-
viousness (44.9 and 43.2% respectively) the former demonstrates the greatest
degree of first flush, while the latter demonstrates a lag of both pol-
lutant loads behind water load in the early storm stages. At present
time, there is no known reason for this anomally.
The implications of these findings are threefold, and are at least
applicable to areas of separate sewers. First, a limited sampling pro-
gram, in terms of the number of samples taken per storm, will yield results
similar to a more extensive sampling program. Secondly, storage and treat-
ment of the initial portions of runoff will not remove significantly more
pollutants than the percent of the storm that is captured. Thirdly, as
the amount of pollutants are closely associated with the amount of runoff,
efforts to reduce the amount of runoff will reduce the amount of pollutants
generated.
-------
32
Table I3a. Cumulative parameter load by cumulative water load, % of total
discharged*
Cumulative water load
Cumulative suspended
solids, average
Cumulative total
phosphorous, average
10%
10.1% ±
8.0
9.3% ±
7.3
20%
22.0% ±
11.5
20.5% +
11.1
40%
45.2% ±
16.3
41.9% ±
14.6
60%
67.2% ±
17.8
63.0% ±
14.9
80%
85.8% ±
9.7
82.8% ±
8.1
*Results are based on analysis of 53 of the most closely monitored events.
The integration program was used to calculate the cumulative parameter loads.
For these calculations, the end of the storm (100% of the water load dis-
charged) is considered to be the time of the last sampling.
-------
w 33
v. Simulated unit loading data and hazard raning of land uses
*
Simulated loadings of suspended solids, total phosphorus and lead
have been used to weight the pollution contribution of various land uses
in the Menomonee River watershed. The simulated loadings are based on an
_ average soil slope range of 2 to 6%, the prevailing soil type (Ozaukee
silt loam), and dust and dirt accumulation and contamination in urban
areas based on data from national averages.
The output of the simulation exercises was provided by the LANDRUN
_ model which was developed during this study and reflects the loadings
during an average year.
Average ranking factors for suspended sediment, total phosphorus and
lead, based on the 12 major land use categories in the Menomonee River
A watershed are given in Table 14. These factors reflect approximate pol-
lutant generation at the sources and are given in units of kg/ha/yr.
The ranking factors for each pollutant for each land use category are
applied in Table 15. The loading factors presented were obtained by compar-
^ ing the sum of the products of the ranking factors times the fraction of
land use in the Menomonee River watershed with the actual loadings measured
at the river mouth (70th St.).
A relative degree of hazard scale (impact on water quality) was assigned
— to each land use by utilizing an approximate logarithmic scale of loading
factors. Table 15 and Figs. 2, 3 and 4 in graph form provide data showing
the actual amount and percent contribution of each land use to the total
loadings for each of the three pollutants at the river mouth. It should be
•^ pointed out that developing urban areas, although representing only 2.6% of
the total area of the watershed, contribute ca 37% and 48% respectively, of
the suspended solids and total phosphorus at the river mouth.
The relative degrees of hazard for the land use activities are inter-
,f* preted on the basis of a logarithmic scale. Thus, for total suspended solids
as an example, the loading factor at the river mouth for wetlands (116 kg/ha/yr)
is ca 100 times greater than that for forested land and woodlots (1.5 kg/ha/yr)
and is assigned a hazard degree ranking of 3.
A The highest unit loading factors for suspended solids and total phosphorus
were for feedlot operations when expressed on a kg/ha/yr basis. Only
developing urban land areas approached the same order of magnitude
-------
34
Table 14. Ranking factors (potential credibility at source) for the land
use categories designated in the Menomonee River watershed
Land use category
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
8a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Industrial
Commercial
High-density residential
Medium-density residential
Low-density residential
Land under development
Row crops
Pastures and small grains
Park and recreation*
Forested lands and woodlots
Wetlands
Feedlots
Landfills and dumps**
Sus.
5
3
3
3
43
1
1
1
69
Ranking
solids
,100
,450
,650
,100
650
,700
,780
,310
460
15
,160
,600
factors
Total
4.
1.
2.
2.
1.
78.
3.
2.
0.
0.
2.
250
, kg/ha/yr
phos.
46
51
77
46
05
7
19
3
81
03
1
Lead
6
13
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.9
.2
.6
.2
.48
.10
*Park and recreation included in land use category no. 8 in Table 1 is
segregated.
**Excluded because this land use is likely to have a greater impact on
groundwater than on surface water.
-------
Table 15. Relative degree of hazard, loading factors, loading at river mouth for suspended sediment,
total phosphorus and lead for various categories of land use in the Menomonee River
watershed utilizing unit load values at the 70th St (413005) monitoring station
Land use
category*
9
8a
5
10
8
7
4
2
3
1
6
11
9
8a
5
2
10
8
4
3
7
1
6
11
9
8a
8
10
7
11
6
5
4
3
1
2
Unit loads** at
river mouth, kg/ha/yr
1.5
46
65
116
131
178
310
345
365
510
4,370
6,960
0.003
0.08
0.10
0.15
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.32
0.45
7.9
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.010
0.048
0.42
0.56
0.69
1.32
Loading
kg/yr/land
3,000
73,000
271,000
124,000
540,000
1,612,000
1,393,000
2,257,000
157,000
312,000
4,000,000
223,000
10,965,000
9
128
438
988
225
947
1,105
119
2,899
273
7,201
800
15,132
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
200
1,887
240
428
8,635
11,400
at river mouth
use % land use
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
0.03
0.66
2.5
1.1
4.9
14.7
12.7
20.6
1.4
2.8
36.5
2.0
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
0.06
0.85
2.9
6.5
1.5
6.3
7.3
0.79
19
1.8
48
5.3
LEAD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
1.8
16
2.1
3.8
76
Area for land
use , /'
5.6
4.4
11.8
3.0
11.7
25.7
12.7
18.5
1.2
1.7
2.6
0.1
99 . i***
5.6
4.4
11.8
18.5
3.0
11.7
12.7
1.2
25.7
1.7
2.6
0.1
99.1***
5.6
4.4
11.7
3.0
25.7
0.1
2.6
11.8
12.7
1.2
1.7
18.5
99.1***
Relative degri
of hazard
1
2
2
3
3
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.5
5.5
1
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.0
4.0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
3
3.5
*Definitions of land category numbers are shown in Table 1. Park and recreation included in
category 8—pastures and small grains—segregated. Category 12—landfill and dumps—not estimated
since it is expected to impact more on groundwater. Category 13—water areas—not included.
**10% delivery ratio was assumed from potential transportable pollutants shown in Table 14.
***Landfill and water areas comprise 0.9% of area of basin.
-------
10"
103
.
JH
~^
03
42
BO
^
& 9
g 1Q2
s
W
§
t"1
§
s
H
M
10
1
rH
ID
0) 4-1
•H C
4-1 (U
0) -H
73 in
•H QJ
0)
r-1 -rt
4-1 cn
rH rH -H C
CT3 CTJ 0) QJ
•rl -H C T3
^1 0 01 1
4-J V4 13 6
CO tU 1 3
13 B 00 T3
G 0 -rl CD
rH O ;~r] J£^
—
—
rH
n)
•H
4-1
c
QJ
T3
-H
W
dJ
•H
in
C
CD
T3
1
O
w
G
QJ
e
o
rH
0)
P>
0)
T3
|H
(1)
"Td
c
3
T3
n)
in
a
•rl
id
&0
r— (
i— H
id
§
Tj
C
in a)
P.
o in
M dJ
O r<
JJ 4J C
O M O
Pi td -H
id
u*
l-l
o
0)
M
T3
cd
id
PH
in
C
rH
T3
O
O
3
in
T3
C
T-H
4J
CU
3
0)
4-1
O
rH
-o
0
0)
h>H
36
567
LAND USE CATEGORY
10
11
Fig. 2. Simulated unit loadings of suspended sediment for principal
land use categories at the mouth (70th St.) of the Menomonee
River (413005).
-------
io2r
10 —
1 _
id
oo
O
OH
W
ID'!L
o
H
M
25
10~
4-1
G
oi
6
o
rH
01
>
73
0)
73
C
73
C
— a
n4
rH
id
rH *H
id 4J
•rl G
4-1 0)
G 73
O> -H
73 01
•rH 01
01 U
u) UP-,
•H 4-1
U >-, -H rH
4J 4-1 01 Id
— 01 i-l C -H
3 01 01 4-1
73 fi -d C
C 01 1 0)
M T3 6 "O
rH 1 3 -H
rO X -H 01
•rH 00 T3 0)
U -rH 01 U
U 33 S
o> >•
^ rn
u
fi
UJ
Tj
1
5
O
01
C
•H
rt
M
00
rH
rH
nJ
C3
01
01
p. "O
0 C
U u)
u G
01 O
3 0) -H
O U 4-1
pd 3 n!
4-J O1
in u
P-i OJ
t-l
73
id
u
id
HH
01
73
C
id
73
O
0
3
01
4J
O
i-H
73
01
0)
01
C
id
I
4-1
OJ
•^
>s-
37
5 6 7
LAND USE CATEGORY
8a
10
11
Fig. 3. Simulated unit loadings of total P for principal land use
categories at the mouth (70th St.) of the Menomonee River
(413005).
-------
38
10
r
1
JH
-£?
(fl
EC
H
O
W
£>
1 — 1
oi
3 lo"1
H
H
lo"'1
n)
•H
a
M
o n)
O -H rH
j i m
,— 4
cfl
•H
n
4-J
en
^
~~ 'c
_
__
C -H
0) 4J
*r3 C
•H a)
CO T3
QJ -rl
)-l CO
cu
^ H
4-1
•H P>->
tn 4J
C -H
a) en
T3 a
1 CD
M 1
•H B
•H
13
->
***
H \Z1 RURAL LAND USES \~/
•H
4-1
C
0)
-a
•H
en
01
•H
en
q
0)
i
o
4-1
q
0)
B
a
o
i— H
0)
01
-a
01
q
3
-a
n)
' •
345
LAND USE CATEGORY
8a
10
11
Fig. 4. Simulated unit loadings of lead for principal land use categories at the
mouth (70th St.) of the Menomonee River (413005).
-------
39
for the loading factors. However, an examination of Table 15 clearly shows
that feedlot operations do not represent a significant contribution to the
total river mouth loadings for suspended solids and total phosphorus.
Thus, when considering the relative degree of hazard, unit area loading
factors and percent loading at the river mouth for each of these pollutants,
care must be taken in interpreting the significance of any given land use
activity. However, the issue is more straightforward when considering lead.
The unit area loading for lead is highest in commercial areas. About 80% of
the total river mouth loading of lead originates from commercial property,
traffic corridors and transportion system activities. Thus, the commercial
land use category has the highest degree of hazard, the highest unit loading
and by far the greatest contribution to the total river mouth loading. It
should also be mentioned that the commercial land use category (including
transportation) accounts for ca 19% of the total area of the Menomonee
River watershed. This is the third highest areal land use category (highest
urban category) after row crops and pastures.
By comparing river mouth loadings with loadings generated at the source,
it was possible to estimate approximate delivery ratios for the Menomonee
River watershed. The delivery ratios for suspended sediment, total phos-
phorus and lead were of the order of 10%, but the weakness of some of the
assumptions make it difficult to establish a precise numerical value. The
delivery ratios are based on comparisons of the monitoring data for a
limited time frame with simulated loadings based on national averages.
Therefore, the delivery ratios represent rough estimates and are not
absolute values.
However this information could have important consequences for the
development of management strategies since a reduction of about 50% in
suspended solids and total phosphorus might be achieved by treatment of
about 5% of the land area. Similarly, about 80% reduction in lead reaching
the river mouth might be achieved by treatment of 15 to 20% of the land area.
Thus in the development of remedial strategies, decisions must be made on
the relative importance of different parameters as they impact on lake
quality and use. Further implications of this information is discussed in
the section dealing with usefulness of findings on the Great Lakes Basin
scale.
-------
40
D. Physical Characteristics of the Watershed
The Menomonee River watershed features a variety of land uses. Land
use inventories for 1970 and 1975 indicate that the lower part of the
watershed is highly urbanized while the upper portion is essentially rural.
Greater changes in land use would be expected to occur in the upper water-
shed because of urbanization brought about by increasing population.
The kinds and amounts of land-derived pollutants depend on the land
use as affected by man's activities, imperviousness, soil type, degree of
erodibility, and slope. The distance of the pollution source to the stream
has a considerable influence on the delivery of the pollutants generated
during runoff and erosional processes. While slope and soil type are the
predominant factors in rural watersheds, the main factor governing inputs
from urban and urbanizing watersheds is likely to be the degree of imper-
viousness of the land surface.
The major soil types and some physical characteristics of the 48 sub-
watersheds in the Menomonee River watershed are presented in Table 16.
The majority of the soils are silt loams. The two soils that are pre-
dominant and widely distributed in the watershed are Ozaukee sil and Mequon
sil. The average slope for most of the soils range from 1 to 6% which
corresponds to slopes of nearly level to gently sloping. Most of the soils
have an erodibility factor of 0.35. The degree of imperviousness asso-
ciated with the subwatersheds ranges from three to about 65% which is
indicative of the differences in urban development in the watershed.
-------
41
Table 16. Soil types and physical characteristics of the 48 aubwatersheds of the
Menomonee River watershed for use in the LANDRUN model
Trib.
No.
subwatershed Principal soil
Area
(ha) type,* %
Average
slope, %
Upper Menomonee River - No.
12A
12B
12C
12D
12E
430
1,200
570
980
1,592
Palms mucky peat-20
Mixed Ozaukee and
Mequon sil-18
Theresa sil-18
Hochheim sil-15
Theresa sil-25
Mayville sil-20
Hochheim sil-15
Pella sil-10
Theresa sil-21
Hochheim sil-14
Palms mucky peat-12
Lamartine sil-10
Houghton mucky peat-10
Theresa sil-20
Pella sil-14
Hochheim sil-12
Ozaukee sil-40
Palms mucky peat-14
Ashkum sicl-10
1
4
3
5
4
3
7
1
4
7
1
2
1
4
1
6
5
1
2
Upper Menomonee River - No.
10A
10B
IOC
10D
10E
620
460
500
1,600
850
Ozaukee sil-71
Palms muck-20
Ashkum sicl-9
Ozaukee sil-68
Mequon sil-22
Hochheim sil-10
Ozaukee sil-30
Knowles sil-16
Ashkum sicl-16
Palms mucky peat-15
Mequon sil-11
Hochheim sil-37
Theresa sil-17
Ozaukee sil-35
Houghton mucky peat-15
Colwood sil-14
Mequon sil-12
Knowles sil-12
5
1
1
2
3
6
5
4
1
1
2
10
4
5
1
1
1
3
Perm. ,
cm/hr
673001***
9.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
9.50
4.20
4.20
9.50
4.20
9.50
4.20
9.50
4.20
4.20
9.50
1.25
683002
4.20
9.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
1.25
9.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
9.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
Erodibil. Imperv.,
factor** %
0.25 13
0.35
0.35
0.45
0.35 6.8
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35 8.3
0.35
0.25
0.35
0.25
0.35 2.5
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.25
0.28 1.3
0.35 23
0.25
0.28
0.35 5.2
0.35
0.35
0.35 23
0.35
0.28
0.25
0.35
0.35 6.3
0.35
0.35 7.9
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.35
-------
Table 16 continued
42
Trib.
No.
subwatershed Principal soil
Area (ha) type,* %
Average
slope, %
Upper Menomonee River - No.
7A
7B
1C
7D
7E
7F
7G
7H
11A
11B
11C
9
8A
8B
8C
890
820
720
1,400
300
830
1,300
230
527
852
766
553
600
840
1,010
Ozaukee sil-60
Mequon sil-23
Ozaukee sil-60
Mequon sil-17
Palms muck-13
Ashkum sicl-10
Ozaukee sil-65
Mequon sil-25
Ozaukee sil-55
Mequon sil-32
Ozaukee sil-55
Martinton sil-17
Mequon sil-12
Ozaukee sil-50
Mequon sil-25
Ozaukee sil-75
Mequon sil-13
Ozaukee sil-100
Little Menomonee
Ozaukee sil-50
Mequon sil-13
Ogden muck-10
Ozaukee sil-50
Mequon sil-10
Ozaukee sil-44
Ogden muck-14
Pella sil-11
Little Menomonee
Ozaukee sil-39
Mequon sil-20
Little Menomonee
Ozaukee sil-67
Mequon sil-22
Ozaukee sil-68
Mequon sil-20
Ashkum sic 1-12
Ozaukee sil-45
Sebawa sil-28
Mequon sil-13
6
3
6.5
2
1
1
4
3
5
3
5
2
2
5
3
5
1
4
River - No.
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
River - No.
3
3
River - No.
5
3
5
2
4
4
1
2
Perm. ,
cm/hr
683001
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
9.50
1.25
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
463001
4.20
4.20
9.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
9.50
9.50
413011
4.20
4.20
413008
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
Erodibil.
factor
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.35
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Imperv. ,
%
21
11
16
17
24
12
9.7
35
4.6
4.6
3.1
44
27
12
10.5
-------
Table 16 continued
43
Trib. subwatershed Principal soil
No.
6A & 6C
6B
6i) & 6F
hE
4A
4B, 4C
& 4D
3A
3B & 3H
3C
3D
3E
3F
3G
5
2
1A
IB
19
Area (ha) type,* %
1,457
1,308
1,109
9/5
790
1,991
326
2,339
224
605
320
500
142
178
182
1,142
388
304
Lower Menomonee
Ozaukee sil-68
Ozaukee sil-39
Ozaukee sil-47
Ozaukee sil-57
Mixed Ozaukee sil and
Houghton muck-29
Lower Menomonee
Ozaukee sil-33
Ozaukee sil-92
Lower Menomonee
++
Ozaukee sil-61
Ozaukee sil-44
Mequon sil-11
Ozaukee sil-36
Mequon sil-25
Ozaukee sil-29
Mequon sil-18
Alluvial land-9
Ozaukee sil-65
Mequon sil-30
Mequon sil-26
Ozaukee sil-10
Lower Menomonee
++
Lower Menomonee
++
Lower Menomonee
-H-
++
++
Average
slope, %
River - No.
4
2.7
2
4.3
3.5
River - No .
1
2.5
River - No.
2.5
4
3
4
3
5
3
1
5
3
1
3
River - No.
River - No.
River - No.
Perm. ,
cm/hr
413007
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
413006
4.20
4.20
413005
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.00
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
413010
413099
413004
Erodibil.
factor**
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.44
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Imperv. ,
%
31
38
12
20
51
42
47
50
45
50
44
45
52
54
54
66
56
54
*Location of monitoring stations is given in Fig. 1 and Table 2.
**Soil types occupying more than 10% of subwatershed area are included.
***This is the K factor in the Universal Soil Loss Equation; as number increases
the susceptibility to erosion increases.
+Imperviousness of whole subwatershed based on 1975 Land Uses Inventory by SEWPRC.
4-fNo soil mapped.
-------
44
F, Characterization of Soils and Bottom and Suspended Sediments
The surface area of soil and sediment particles is determined largely
by particle size, i.e., the surface area increases very rapidly as particle
size decreases. In turn, the surface area determines the quantity of pol-
lutants that can be adsorbed by soil and sediment particles. Thus, the
incursion of soil particles of large diameter (sand-sized particles) into
water-courses will be less detrimental than small diameter particles (clay-
sized particles). In determining the advantages and disadvantages of alter-
nate sediment control measures it is important that the fine materials be
given prime consideration. This section describes the particle size dis-
tribution and composition of the major soil types in the Menomonee River
watershed and the bottom and suspended sediments being carried and deposited
by the Menomonee River (Tables 17 and 18). This information—where com-
bined and compared with information from other pilot watersheds—should
assist those persons having responsibility for extrapolating the pilot
watershed information to the Great Lakes Basin and for evaluating the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of alternative remedial measures.
Preliminary results indicate a significant enrichment of clay-sized
particles in the suspended sediment; about a three-fold increase over that
of the surrounding soils (Table 17). The effect of clay enrichment on
pollutant transport can be appreciated by estimating the specific surface
of the soils and the suspended sediment. The average specific surface
calculated for the soils and suspended sediment are 74 and 171 m2/g,
respectively; an increase in potential pollutant transport by more than
two-fold. Particle size distribution (PSD) was determined by ultrasonic
dispersion of soils or sediment without prior removal of organic matter.
The ultrasonically-separated particles were used for the analysis of total
P and metals (Tables 17 and 18). This is the preferred method of disper-
sion if analysis of the above parameters is desired. Contamination
through contact of metal containers and addition of chemical additives as
used in the conventional PSD analysis is avoided. Determination of PSD
in suspended sediment by the U.S. Geological Survey using a chemical
dispersant after organic matter oxidation also showed high amounts of
claysized particles (Table 19).
-------
Table 17. Particle size distribution and total P concentrations in various size fractions
of soils and bottom and suspended sediments in the Menomonee River watershed
45
Sample/sample
location*
Ozaukee silt loam
Mequori silt loam
Hoohheim silt loam
Ashkum silty day loam
Pplla silt loam
Theresa silt loam
Up£er Menomonee River
Friestad
River Lane (673001)
Menomonee Falls
Northern Crossway
Lily Creek
Dretzka Creek
i24rh St (683001)
Little Menomonee River
Donges Bay Road (463001)
County Q Road
Road F near Road B
Appleton Ave (433008)
Lower Menomonee River
Capitol Drive
70th St (-U3005)
Falk Corporation (413004)
Particle
Sand
24
35
29
21
14
22
35
65
24
67
20
30
19
61
23
64
17
46
89
44
size
%
distribution**
Silt Clay
57
36
44
44
49
62
38
19
29
19
41
23
42
24
24
19
32
28
7
34
SOILS***
19
29
27
35
37
16
BOTTOM SEDIMENT
27
16
47
14
39
47
39
15
53
17
51
26
4
22
Sand
119
186
76
491
426
79
247
108
365
180
922
588
565
155
386
81
154
128
141
289
Total P,
Ug/g
Silt
241
2,214
154
397
290
128
701
490
570
894
3,371
700
2,299
493
682
290
200
2W
523
1,257
Clay
2,757
2,825
1,821
2,918
1,517
2,336
1,398
1,564
1,688
5,529
4,214
5,115
2,872
2,092
1,557
1,782
426
2,203
1,584
2,683
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
Upper Menomonee River
River Lane (673001)
Pilgrim Road (683002)
124th St (683001)
Little Menomonee River
Donges Bay Rd (463001)
Noyes Creek (413011)
Appleton Ave (413008)
Lower Menomonee River
Underwood Creek (413007)
Honey Creek (413006)
70th St (413005)
Schoonmaker Creek (413010)
Falk Corporation (413004)
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
18
19
28
9
6
17
18
20
18
27
17
82
8J
72
91
94
83
82
80
82
73
83
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a .
n.a.
1,030
1,366
903
760
286
402
724
921
640
770
803
4,016
2,023
2,142
1,795
1,109
1,061
1,376
1,786
1,414
2,179
1,133
*STORET numbers of major monitoring stations in parentheses
**Samples dispersed by ultrasonic treatment without prior removal of organic matter.
Clay-size fraction is < 4 ym.
***Approximately 150 soil types have been mapped in the Menomonee River watershed. Total
area of watershed is 35,285 ha of which 26,712 ha are mapped by soil type. The soils
listed constitute 70% of the area mapped as soil.
n.d. Not detected
n.a. Sand fraction not present
-------
46
Table 18. Metal* concentrations in various size fractions of soils and bottom and suspended sediments in
the Menomonee River watershed
Sample /sample
location**
Sand
Pb
Silt
Clay
Sand
Metal,
Cd
Silt
Pg/g
Clay
Sand
Cu
Silt
Clay
SOILS***
O^aukee silt loam
Mequon silc loam
Hochheim silt loam
A?hkum silty clay loam
Pella silt loam
Theresa silt loam
n.d.
4.7
5.2
9.0
9.8
n.d.
9.5
11
9.8
14
10
6.0
58
41
56
38
39
55
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.16
0.25
0.11
0.53
0.23
0.12
0.78
0.78
0.35
1.3
0.81
0.44
2.3
4.0
1,7
2.0
1.9
2.1
17
15
7.3
27
8.2
4.8
90
82
41
112
44
36
BOTTOM SEDIMENT
Upper Menomonee River
Friestad
River Lane (673001)
Menomonee Falls
Northern Crossway
I.ily Creek
Uretzka Creek
124th St (683001)
Little Menomonee River
Donges Bay Road (463001)
County Q Road
Road F near Road B
Applet on Ave (413008)
Lower Menomonee River
CapiroL Drive
70(-h St (413005)
Faik Corporation (413004)
4.1
7.4
12
32
42
17
13
2.5
9.3
4.1
20
32
16
170
7.8
16
18
101
89
55
33
7.3
18
16
21
35
92
412
25
41
55
512
438
334
208
36
25
65
41
115
487
1,303
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.08
n.d.
0.11
n.d.
0.06
n.d.
0.06
n.d.
0.19
0.07
1.88
0.20
n.d.
n.d.
0.72
0.44
0.59
0.26
0.21
n.d.
0.45
0.16
0.44
0.52
4.98
SUSPENDED
Upper Menomonee River
River Lane (673001)
Pilgrim Road (683002)
124th St (683001)
Little Menomonee River
Donges Bay Road (463001)
Noyes Creek (413011)
Appleton Ave (413008)
Lower Menomonee River
Underwood Creek (413007)
Honey Creek (413006)
70th St (413005)
Schoonmaker Creek (413010)
Falk Corporation (413004)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a .
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.d.
50
60
n.d.
139
31
348
158
125
967
104
83
244
204
43
166
63
515
330
165
1,513
118
n.a.
n.a .
n.a .
n.a .
n.a.
n.a .
n.a .
n.a.
n.a .
n.a .
n.a.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.81
n.d.
n.d.
0.77
1.3
0.98
0.54
3.2
2.9
2.5
1.7
1.1
0.86
1.6
0.58
1 .8
3.8
33
SEDIMENT
2.4
n.d.
0.90
0.34
0.58
0.37
1.7
1.4
0.88
4.4
0.75
2.1
1.9
3.6
4.1
11
4.1
6.3
2.4
2.7
1.7
3.0
6.6
5.7
91
n.a .
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a .
n.a.
n.a .
n.a.
9.8
8.2
7.1
27
24
20
17
8.5
11
8.1
6.6
13.8
42
219
29
22
19
20
41
8.3
40
39
50
50
37
5^
4^,
Jo
14"
131
1J4
80
48
36
48
2J
8V
110
475
37
51
71
47
41
38
7 d
75
70
10',
62
*Samples have been analyzed for Zn, Fe, Cr, Ni and Mn
**S10RET numbers of major monitoring stations in parentheses
***Approximately 150 soil types have been mapped in the Menomonee River watershed. Total area of the
watershed is 35,285 ha of which 26,712 ha are mapped by soil type. The soils listed constitute 70% of
the total area mapped as soil.
n.d. Not detected
n.a. Sand fraction not present
-------
Table 19. Particle size distribution of suspended sediment in the Menomonee River watershed
Sample location*
Upper Menomonee River
River Lane (673001)
Pilgrim Road (683002)
12'a'i ht (683001)
Little Menomonee River
Donges Bay Road (463001)
Noyes Creek (413011)
Appieton Ave (413008)
Lower Ilenontone--' River
Underwood Creek (413002)
Honey Creek (41J01Q)
Schoonmaker Creek
(413010)
70th St (413005)
Fa Ik Corporation (413004)
Date
col lected
2-4-76
8-31-76
8-31-76
9-19-76
2-18-76
7-30-76
7-31-76
7-31-76
9-15-76
3-29-76
7-30-76
8-31-76
3-12-76
7-28-76
7-28-76
9-19-76
?-l8-76
7-28-76
7-30-76
,'-31-76
9-15-76
2-18-76
2-25-76
2-9-76
2-12-76
7-28-76
7-28-76
9-19-/6
9-19-76
2-12-76
3-12-76
7-28-76
7-28-76
9-9-76
9-9-76
9-9-76
2-18-76
3-5-76
3-12-76
3-12-76
7-28-76
7-28-76
7-28-76
7-30-76
7-31-76
7-28-76
Time
collected
1540
1545
1205
1950
1515
2355
0450
1555
1050
0850
2135
1430
1445
0600
1150
1630
1635
1200
2130
0345
1215
1420
1435
1605
1503
0850
1220
1815
2040
1300
1446
0810
0900
0235
0250
0305
1230
1355
1610
1820
1111
1530
1550
2330
2030
1140
Instantaneous
discharge , CMS
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.40
9.5
1.4
2.5
0.57
0.15
1.87
0.15
0.004
2.8
0.12
0.18
0.05
3.7
0.28
2.5
2.5
0.02
3.5
1.9
0.3/
2.3
3.0
3.9
1.5
1.1
0.54
0.20
0.19
0.17
2.4
2.3
0.93
13.9
55.3
19.0
22.4
5.0
2.0
1.9
14.3
1.3
0.42
Posi t ion on
hydrograph
Normal winter flow
Steady flow
Falling stage
fai 1 end of event
Rising stage
Falling stage
Peak
Falling stage
Peak
Falling stage
Rising stage
Rising stage
Falling stag.'
Rising st?u>e
hailing stagt
Rising stage
Falling stage
Rising Ptagi
Rising stage
Fa 1 1 ing stage
Steady flow
Falling ^tagi
Rising stage
Rising stage
Peak
Rising stage
F 'i 1 1 ing s tage
Approaching peak
Fal 1 i ng stage
Approaching peak
Rising stage
Approaching peak
hist after peak
Peak
lust nfter peak
Falling stage
Fal ling stage
Fal ling stage
Rising stage
Rising stage
Falling stage
Falling stage
Falling stage
Approaching peak
Falling stage
Rising stage
Suspended
sediment. ,mg/ 1
54
26
16
34
267
213
260
80
133
224
221
19
J ,740
299
64
66
247
129
] , 140
1,220
18
***
380
1,020
796
389
31
226
98
551
330
485
222
833
376
183
***
179
344
257
357
76
66
515
143
233
Partible
Sand
28
3
1
1
4
1
1
0
4
7
1
5
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
1
3
4
0
h
b
3
5
2
2
0
1
0
14
1 4
8
7
24
9
4
2
4
3
5
0
0
size distribution,**/
Silt
40
22
16
21
38
18
12
22
4 1
33
27
43
45
51
22
30
22
29
28
16
15
17
35
5
35
52
27
36
24
1 i
29
49
40
52
44
38
34
20
27
17
47
15
21
41
6
24
Cla,
3.'
7 ;,
Hi
78
58
81
67
78
55
70
72
52
5 i
4/
7(>
6H
/6
69
7 '
84
84
80
61
95
36
42
70
59
7'<
85
71
50
60
34
42
54
59
56
64
79
51
77
76
54
94
/6
*STORET numbers of major monitoring stations are in parentheses.
**Samples dispersed with Na hexametaphosphate after oxidation of organic- matter content. Clay size fraction is •" 4 pro as
determined by U.S. Geological Survey.
***No data.
-------
48
Total P and trace metals associated with soils and sediments are con-
centrated in the clay-size fraction (Tables 17 and 18). The amounts of
these elements in the various fractions are in the order of sand
-------
49
Table 20. Distribution of total 1' and Pb in various
size fractions in soils and sediment
_ Distribution,* %
Fraction Total P Pb
Soils
Sand 6 6
Silt 28 26
Clay 66 68
Bottom Sediment
Sand 12 11
Silt 22 16
Clay 66 73
Suspended Sediment
Sand 0 0
Silt 9 11
Clay 91 89
*Average of all soils and sediments. Values are
obtained by using the equation: % Distribution =
(% fraction)(concentration in fraction)
£(% fraction)(concentration in fraction)
-------
50
Table 21. Dispersabillty, by shaking, of soils In the Menomonee River water-
shed
Time of Ozaukee Mequon
shaking (hr) Fracticn,*% si] ail
1 Sand
SiLt
Clay
4 Sand
Siit
Clay
16 Saad
Si it:
Cldy
32 Sand
S i s t
Clay
64 b-i.".q
Slit
"l"
51.8 h3,3
4 6,3 .1 ~. . "s
1.9 J . 4
48.4 i)V <•.
48.0 32,3
3 .6 •; , 0
37 ,n S8.9
-, 1 . 4 I / . 3
:,.() ', ',
4 ' - / • '< >u-
52.2 42.5
6.1 ? . 9
J9 f -x- .i
•}'-' . 5 j4 >
V ' ! ; . '-
Soils
ilocbheim Ashkum
til s i c 1
56.8 45.
-'• i / 52 .
;. . o 2 ,
5 . .•> 52.
-0. i 43,
a. 2 4.
-s 6 . i - 45.
46. a 47.
6 . 6 6 .
4h,i< 45.
A5.8 46,
8.2 8.
-4.. 5 39,
i ' , 4 .Hi.
; 3 , !'. i o ,
o
i
4
j
3
0
6
9
4
:•
5
3
j
2
Pella Theresa
sil sil
51
-5
50
44
4
42
50
7
32
58
8
32
56
10
.4
f
0
.6
.6
.8
.3
.7
.0
.7
.6
.7
.9
.7
. 4
37
60
2
43
54
3
34
61
4
35
60
4
35
58
6
7
, 2
.0
. G
.0
. 3
.6
,1
.3
.2
.6
,f>
, 1'
* j
*Sand: 2,000 -• 6? ;M;
-------
51
Table 22. Dispersability of clay-size particles by shaking and ratio
of clay-size particles dispersed by shaking and ultrasonic
treatment
Soils
Time oi Ozaukee Mequon Hochheim Ashkum Pella Theresa
shaking (hr) sil sil sil sicl sil sil
Clay Dispersed. %
I 1.9 1.4 2.0 2.4 3.0 2.1
4 3.6 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.8 3.0
16 5.0 4.4 6.6 6.4 7.0 4.1
32 6.1 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.7 4.6
64 7.7 11.4 10.8 10.2 10.4 6.1
Ratio (shaking/ultrasonic)
1 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.13
4 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.19
16 0.26 0.15 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.26
32 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.29
64 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.29 0.28 0.38
-------
52
12, DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION FOR
THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Section 12 of this document was formatted to include that data and
information which is particular to the individual pilot watershed investi-
gation. An overland flow simulation model was developed for 'this program
and was calibrated and verified in the Menomonee River watershed. Its
usefulness in predicting loadings for other areas, e.g., Toledo, is
presently under examination. A groundwater study has been conducted to
measure the quality of groundwater in the basin and to develop loading
rates of groundwater to the river. A model which simulates the transport
of conservative ions through a one-dimensional groundwater system is
currently being tested and will be used to model the movement of chloride
in several vertically-oriented cross-sections. In order to relate ground-
water quality to land use, a series of land use/groundwater contaminant-
potential maps are being prepared.
Computation of atmospheric loadings of nutrients and toxic elements
for the basin is underway and attempts will be made to segregate sources
of these materials. The use of aerial imagery to classify land cover has
been evaluated and the potential for the use of this methodology for the
transfer of Menomonee River information to other urban areas has been
tested for Toledo, Detroit and Rochester. Attempts to find a biological
indicator of pollution in a river system has, to this point, met with
limited success.
The information gathered in Sections 11 and 12 of this report will be
compared with data from other pilot watershed investigations which, in
turn, will allow assessment of recommendations on a basin-wide basis.
-------
53
A. LANDRUN Model
A variety of models is available for modeling runoff from urban and
nonurban areas, but only a few include pollutant transport. Of the avail-
able models most are either general hydrological models estimating runoff
quantity from rainfall excess or models that are used for the design of
stormwater overflows in sanitary sewers. It was felt that the development
of a medium-sized hydrologic and sediment transport model would best meet
Task C objectives. The model, under the working code LANDRUN, was developed
to describe the washoff of pollutants from land surfaces. The model can
be used to describe the washoff of pollutants in watersheds under existing
land use conditions or under predicted future conditions.
-------
54
i. The LANDRUN model and its applicability to watershed studies
The LANDRUN model is a dynamic hydrologic transport model which trans-
forms precipitation into surface runoff, interflow and groundwater aquifer
recharge quantity and quality. A schematic conceptual flow diagram of the
model is shown in Fig. 5. Most of the model parameters and some inputs,
such as imperviousness, are related to land use within the modeled water-
shed.
A soil adsorption model applicable to phosphorus, pesticides and toxic
elements is incorporated as a subroutine into LANDRUN. The parameters of
the model are related to such soil characteristics as pH, and clay and
organic matter contents and the inputs are infiltration rate, soil moisture
content, evapotransportation, fertilizer application and amount of the
modeled substance removed by growth and harvesting of crops. The output
from the subroutine is the amount of pollutants adsorbed on top soil par-
ticles, quantity of dissolved pollutants removed from the top soil and the
amount of dissolved pollutants in the interflow and groundwater recharge.
As mentioned earlier, the model can be used to predict the washoff of
pollutants from the land surface in a watershed under existing or future
land use conditions. Use of the model frees the investigator from temporal
constraints in that long term rainfall data can be used to generate washoff
for an "average year".
-------
55
NON URBAN AREAS
M M I I I
URBAN AREAS
M M M Jl 1 II I I
FERTILIZERS-^
RAIN (SNOW MELT)
I
J j T
•DUSTFALL
SALTING
FERTILIZER
ATM. INPUTS
TRANSFORMATION
AND DECAY IN
SOILS
SOIL
ADSORB.
NUTRIENTS
DUST
AND
PARTICUL
ORGANICS
DUST AND
DIRTON
IMPERV
AREAS
DUST AND
DIRTON
PERVIOUS
AREAS
SOIL
'ADSORB.
NUTRIENTS
ADSORP.F
REL.
SOLUBLE
•JUTRiENTS
J
TRANSFORMATION
AND DECAY IN
SOILS
SEDIMENTS AND
NUTRIENTS AD-
SORBED ON
SEDIMENTS
SOLUBLE
NUTRIENTS
J
Fig. 5. Schematic conceptual flow diagram of the LANDRUN model.
-------
56
B. Groundwater
Groundwater discharges to the Menomonee River accounted for 50% of
the base flow during the fall of 1977, 65% of the base flow during the
winter of 1976-77, and 35% of the base flow during the spring of 1977.
The groundwater contribution to base flow in the river is shown in Fig. 5
for the fall of 1976. Summer groundwater flow data will be available for
the final draft.
Most of the groundwater discharge to the river occurs along the Lower
Menomonee River, from 124th Street to 70th Street. Groundwater discharges
along this reach account for 50 to 65% of the total groundwater contribu-
tion to the river.
An almost negligible volume of groundwater was discharged into the
Menomonee River along the reach from Pilgrim Road to 124th Street. Approx-
imately 3 miles of the 5 1/2 mile stretch of the river in this area is
losing water to the shallow aquifer (Fig. 5). This situation likely results
from large withdrawals of groundwater from wells located near the Menomonee
River. In this area groundwater levels are below river elevations and this
portion of the stream receives discharges from three sewage treatment plants.
The general groundwater quality within the basin is good. Toxic metal
concentrations are < 0.1 ug/1. Nutrient levels are generally low with con-
centrations of phosphorus and nitrate-nitrogen often below detection limits.
Bacterial contamination was found where sanitary sewer lines cross or run
parallel to the river. Chloride and sulfate concentrations were twice as
high in groundwater as in the surface baseflow water for the lower part of
the watershed.
The loading rates of groundwater to the river for the fall of 1976 are
presented in Table 23. The loading rates for all seasons monitored will be
compiled for the final draft. The river reach from Station 683001 to 413005
had the largest groundwater loading rates to the river for all parameters.
The relative importance of the groundwater loading to the river baseflow
loading will be determined after river baseflow loadings are available.
The groundwater contribution during most events is considered to be insig-
nificant .
-------
Flow (mgd)
o
OQ
a^
O
o
3
9)
rt
to
d.
ft)
n
ro
&)
rt
fD
O.
H-
CO
O
TO
fD
CD
rt
D"
fD
fD
3
§
O
3
fD
0>
H-
ro
1-1
cn
3*
ro
Cb
3"
(D
Germantown
O
H-
CO
n
m
P.
o
CO
rt
o
0
3"
fD
CU
CL
rt
fD
Pilgrim Rd
O
Donges Bay Rd
Appleton Ave
Butler 124th St
i-i fD
Discharge (m3/day x 103)
-------
•K
r^^
r--
1
ON
C
•H
CO
60
c
•H
T3
cd
0
rH
H
cu
cd
£j
c
o
r-l
o
CO
CM
Ci)
rH
cfl
H
•\
cfl
i — 1 'CJ
cd \
4-1 60
O Jsi
H
CU cfl
rH ~-.
O 60
CO ^
CO «
•H PH
Q
CO CO
O T3
o -^
cd 60
C_J ,^J
CO
TJ
i — ( --^
O 60
•^
cd
*3prO
o -^
CO 60
r^i
^
cd
'O
0) W)
^ tM
O CO
CO tt
CO -H
•H rH
Q 0
CO
CU
60 >,
M CO
cd t3
i~] — ^
OCO
5 6
Q
x:
CJ
cd
CU
P5
00 ^ iH
• * •
r*-\ ^^ P*^
CM CM
• .
O O rH
0 O O
m m m
Ot ON OO
r. «s
rH v£>
O O O
m in in
CM o >
•H -0 £1 -H
o Pi S cu
5 c co 00
O Q pq CU 4-1 O
4J B rH (3
a o co 4J >-i o
cfl G CU 4-) CU C!
0 0) 60 -H rH CU
MS C rJ 4-1 S
O Q PQ
•
13
cu
4-1
cfl
d
a
i — i
cfl
a
cu
rO
O
4-1
Cfl
4-1
CO
TJ
(U
4J
Cfl
O
•H
T3
C
•H
CO
^£
0
cfl
rH
pq
•K
58
-------
A model which simulates the transport of conservative ions such as
chloride and nitrate through a one-dimensional groundwater system is cur
rently being tested. It will be used to model the movement of chloride
in several vertically oriented cross sections. Field data suggest that
chloride concentrations in groundwater appear to be directly related to
land use loading rates while concentrations of other ions are either
relatively low or not directly related to land use patterns. Therefore,
attention will be confined to modeling chloride concentrations. Simulated
concentrations will be compared with field measurements. Instructions wil.1
be presented for applying the model to other watersheds.
In order to relate groundwater quality to land use, a series of land
use/groundwater contaminant potential maps are being prepared. These maps
note the locations of industrial, agricultural and residential activities
which may affect ground and receiving surface water quality. Information
on the surrounding geologic and hydrologic settings and the history of
operations at these sites was developed as was a methodology to rank con-
taminant potentials between sites.
The contaminant potential sheets currently being prepared fit in the
following categories:
1. Existing areas of high, medium and low density septic tank use.
2. Areas of septic tank use projected for the year 2000.
3. Solid waste disposal areas that have been active for the last 25 years,
4. Miscellaneous waste processing facilities; industrial waste water dis-
posal, sewage sludge spreading sites, possible sewer line leakage zones.
5. Current agricultural cropland areas.
6. Agricultural cropland areas projected for the year 2000.
7. Animal feedlot areas.
8. Liquid and solids storage and transport; metal salvage yards, road
storage areas, oil terminals, pipelines, rail yards, etc.
9. Highway and street runoff areas.
10. Residential lawns.
A table which will summarize information on groundwater quality as related '
land use will be prepared for the final report.
-------
60
C. Atmospheric Monitoring
Concentration variations in rain or in air are a function of many
factors. Region-wide background levels of suspended dust have been
identified by comparing total suspended particulate (TSP) concentration
variations at five high-volume air sampling stations. However, an
examination of data collected at these stations permitted a separation of
a local effect and a ranking on TSP concentration: heavy industrial >
residential > transition rural-urban > mixed rural > rural. Local sources
also affect observed lead concentrations in rain water, but this relation-
ship is confounded by spatial variation in precipitation amount.
Several trends, accounted for by meteorological conditions, are observed
across stations, with TSP consistently greater during the summer than
during the winter.
Concentration measurements in rain and air were converted to wet and
dry deposition rates. Seasonal or annual wet deposition lead loadings can
be calculated using the mean concentration in rainfall (30 yg/liter) and
the measured seasonal or annual rainfall. By assuming that all rain-
derived lead in the surface runoff reaches the river, the maximum possible
contribution of lead from rain to the river mouth can be estimated. Dry
deposition input of lead to the Menomonee River watershed is estimated at !
0.75 - 2.5 mg/m /month or 6,300 kg/ha/yr based on an average of 1.5
mg/m /month average value.
-------
61
D. Land Cover Classification from Aerial Imagery
The project is an investigation of the feasibility of interpreting
land cover information — obtained by high altitude aerial imagery — for
input into the LANDRUN hydrological model. Techniques developed involve
digitizing the imagery, calibrating the digital imagery, and classifying
the data into a number of land cover classes. The results of the inves-
tigation have not been used directly in the model but rather a comparison
was made of traditional methods of interpreting land cover with these
techniques for application to other urban watersheds in the Great Lakes.
Two sub-watersheds in the Menomonee River basin were chosen to test
these techniques, namely, the Schoonmaker and Noyes Creeks sub-watersheds.
High altitude imagery (scale 1:120,000) flown by NASA was digitized with
a ground resolution of 6 meters square. Land cover was classified in
each watershed and compared with human photo-interpretation and data
supplied by SEWRPC. A summary of the data is:
Landcover
Impervious
Vegetation
Forest
Transition
Water
Unclassified
Schoonmaker Cr .
63.6%
25.4%
0%
10.7%
0%
0.3%
100%
Noyes Cr.
38.0%
50.0%
3.7%
3.3%
0.05%
4.95%
100%
Since impervious surfaces in urban areas are deemed to be the most important
land cover class, the table shows the results for this class. The computer
classification included five land cover classes: impervious surfaces, tree
cover, crop land, other vegetation and water.
Three other urban watersheds were investigated using this technique.
Imagery (scale of 1:130,000) of Detroit-Windsor, Toledo, and Rochester were
acquired from the EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, S.D. In these cases, NASA
had not properly calibrated the imagery and the classification accuracy
-------
62
dropped to 80 to 85% from 95% for the digital classification in the
Menoraonee watershed. The data have indicated that it is possible to use
high altitude imagery to obtain land cover information for other urban
watersheds and the technique could be used for land cover classification
and modeling of urban watersheds throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
-------
63
E. Biological Monitoring
The biological sampling program has provided some insight regarding
sampling methodology but, to date, has yielded only partially interpretable
data. A more complete analysis of the biological data will be completed in
time for the final draft.
The biological sampling program was implemented in various phases.
Initially, Hester-Dendy artificial substrate platforms were installed in the
Menomoiiee River near selected continuous water quality monitoring sites.
However, various in-streatn flow variations as well as vandalism reduced
their effectiveness. Furthermore, these artificial substrates apparently
excluded certain taxa by favoring colonization by Chi-Tonomidae at the ex-
pense of other genera.
The qualitative Surber sampling device was selected to provide bio-
logical data in riffle areas where the river depth was no greater than
three-tenths of a meter. Greater taxonomic diversity was noted where
Surber samplers were employed.
Attempts to use classical diversity indices to describe the biotic
balance were not successful. The application of a Biotic Index wherein
various species are assigned a quality value is now being tested for the
Menomonee River data and the results will appear in the final draft. Pre-
liminary evaluation indicates that the Biotic Index is a sensitive tech-
nique for assessing biological water quality.
Preliminary observations demonstrate that the combination of non-point
source pollution from upstream agricultural areas, coupled with point sources
in industrial and commercial areas, create significant impacts on the aquatic
biota and possibly mask individual impacts from the other major land-use
categories.
-------
64
13. RELATIONSHIP TO PLUARG OBJECTIVES
The program developed by PLUARG is designed to assess pollutional
loadings to the Great Lakes including their magnitude, source and effect
on the water quality of the lakes. This assessment must eventually
provide recommendations of technically-feasible, cost-effective remedial
management alternatives for land-derived pollution control. The pilot
watershed studies were designed to allow detailed monitoring of all major
land uses in the Great Lakes basin. The Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study deals with those land uses in a highly developed urban setting
(southern part of the watershed) and in a rapidly urbanizing area (northern
part of the watershed) .
Methodology has been developed in the Menomonee study which permits
extrapolation to each of the municipal centers in the Great Lakes basin. \
Presently, tests are being conducted on the Toledo watershed to determine
what amendments to the model must be made for different geographical
regions. Primary information about the watersheds that is needed to
conduct assessments are: land use^ topography, climatolqgical and some
water quality data. Methods to determine land use and degree (%) of
imperviousness in an urban area by remote sensing have been developed in
the Menomonee and tested satisfactorily in the Detroit, Rochester and
Toledo areas. Furthermore, the predictability of the LANDRUN model based
on extrapolation of unit area loads for two urban and two agricultural
watersheds (1,000 to 1,800 ha in size) in the Canadian Grand River water-
shed will be used to test transferability and extrapolation of the
Menomonee River watershed data and methodology and will be compared to
loadings obtained from monitoring data. '
{
Simulated unit area loadings have been developed for 12 land uses and |
a relative hazard scale was established. Since the hazard scale was devel- '
oped logarithmically — i.e., a land use with a hazard scale of 2 has a tenfold
greater unit area load than a land use of scale 1 — it should be applicable
to the entire Great Lakes basin. Thus, it would be possible to define the
minimum area to be treated in a watershed to achieve a predetermined
reduction in loading. Furthermore, point source loadings could be super-
imposed on these calculations so that for a series of reductions in point
sources (e.g., 25, 50 and 75%), the amount of reduction in dispersed
-------
65
source loadings could be calculated to achieve particular percentage
reductions in total load at the river mouth. The impact of reductions
in the river mouth loadings required to impact on Great Lakes water
quality must be assessed. This assessment should take into consideration
that pollutant loadings for different parameters are not closely correlated
with one another and decisions will have to be made not only quantitatively
but also qualitatively — i.e., to what extent should an attempt be made
to reduce each particular pollutant. For example, if a reduction of 40 to
50% in suspended sediment and total phosphorus could be made merely by
treating construction sites, industrial manufacturing and extractive areas
and high density feedlots (5% of land area), one would then have to make
decisions on reductions in river mouth loadings of lead since treatment of
the 5% of the land area would achieve only a 3% reduction in lead loadings.
-------
-'r
t —•'
,
-------
66
14. REMEDIAL MEASURES RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Control management strategies for dispersed pollutional loadings
should always be developed to control the pollutant at the point in the
system where it exhibits its highest concentration. It is at this point
that the cost of treatment will generally be at a minimum.
2. Based on unit loading information, large tracts of land in the
Great Lakes basin will require no land treatment unless major changes in
land use patterns occur in the future. As a first approximation, these
areas likely include the entire Lake Superior watershed, most if not all of
the Lake Huron watershed and significant portions of the rural sectors of
Lakes Mighigan and Ontario.
3. Of the remaining portion of the watershed, the highly developed
areas of Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario will need to be assessed for those
land uses which are most hazardous. Hopefully, treatment of less than 10%
of these areas will result in an approximately 50% reduction in suspended
sediments (particularly the fine particle size material) and 50% reduction
in total phosphorus with some reductions in other sediment-associated
pollutants.
4. Reductions in the use of lead in automobile fuels and improved tech-
nology for exhaust emission control would greatly reduce the atmospheric
i
loading and concomitantly land-derived lead pollution. If lead is deemed
to be a highly sensitive parameter with regard to Great Lakes water quality,
some control measures on major transportation corridors may be essential.
5. If land-derived sediment and phosphorus in the Lake Erie basin are
generated relatively uniformly over the land area, then extensive control
measures may be warranted.
6. An assessment of the likelihood of major reductions in point source
pollution should be made to establish values for reduction in non-point
pollution sources which will significantly impact on Great Lakes water quality.
In this regard, lake shoreline bank erosion contributions should not be
discounted out of hand.
7. When decisions regarding the degree of reduction in non-point sources
of pollution have been made, the recently acquired catalog of remedial
measures will be consulted and alternative remedial strategies will be proposed
for urban areas within the Great Lakes basin and a costing of the alternatives
will be attempted.
-------
67
i.
Qualitive recommendations for the Ilenomonee River basin
1. Following reductions in point source loadings, the areas of highest
suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations, most amenable to
control, are feedlots, construction areas and row crops.
2. Present urban areas, because of the nature of their land uses and
drainage systems, generate high unit loads of pollutants. Low cost remed-
ial alternatives are limited in their effectiveness. Effective alternatives
are usually limited by their high costs.
a. Street sweeping is very cost inefficient with respect to water
quality improvement.
b. Settling ponds may or may not be cost efficient, depending primarily
on the size required (effectiveness varies with area, not volume)
and on land values.
c. In more abundantly treed residential areas of the basin, an autumn
leaf control program can effectively and inexpensively reduce high
loadings of phosphorus.
d. A significant contribution can be effected by the discrete actions
of individuals, if they are aware of and care about how their actions
affect water quality. To this end, an informational program can be
pursued at low relative costs. An additional benefit of such a program
would be the generation of support for wider scale public programs.
Local public officials and professionals should also be targeted for
informational programs of different levels of sophistication.
3. The Menomonee River Basin is a heavily urbanized and rapidly urbanizing,
moderately polluted system. Additionally, it is subject to frequent and
expensive flooding of its heavily developed downstream floodplain. A high
correlation exists between the amount of connected imperviousness, the
rainfall/runoff coefficient, and the pollutant load generated. Accordingly,
it is desirable on all accounts to minimize the effective degree of impervious-
ness, hence the amount of runoff and associated pollutants. Although this is
possible to a limited degree within existing urban areas, the concept finds its
full potential in areas of development and redevelopment. Here requirements
or incentives to maintain the runoff regime at or near its natural level will
minimize the resultant downstream flooding and pollutant generation.
-------
68
ii. Quantitive recommendations for the Menomonee River basin
Based of Land-Run derived unit loads and 1975 land use data, the following
loads are generated.
SOURCE
Point Sources
Development
Row Crops
Feedlots
Other
Total
25%
40%
60%
S.S. (kg/yr)
90,500
4 , 000 , 000
1,612,000
223,000
6,130,000
12,055,500
3,013,875
4,822,200
7,233,300
EFFICIENCY
S.S. T.P.
75%
70% 50%
50% 40%
100% 100%
(kg/yr)
% OF TOTAL
1
33.1
13.3
1.8
50.8
100
Control Methods
AMT . CONTROLLED
S.S.
—
2,800,000
806,000
223,000
3,584,370
35.7%
T.P. (kg/yr)
13,800
7,201
2,899
800
4,232
28,932
7,233
11,573
17,359
(kg/yr)
T.P.
10,350
3,600
1,160
800
13,882
51%
% OF TOTAL
47.7
24.9
10.0
2.8
14.6
100
SOURCE
Point Sources
Development *
Row Crops **
Feedlots ***
TOTAL REDUCTIC
% OF TOTAL
TOTAL COSTS = Cost of point sources + $2,290,000/yr + $360,000
TOTAL DOLLARS
2,290,000/yr
181,200/yr
360,000 one t inu-
* Controls of 916 ha at $2,500/ha, S.S. is a literature value, T.P. an estimate
** Controls (contour plowing and strip cropping) on 80% of row crops (more
than 2% slope) at $25/ha. Acreage and efficiency of S.S. is a SEWRPC
figure, T.P. efficiency is an estimate.
*** Controls on all 36 feedlots within 2000 feet of a stream, at $10,000 each.
-------
69
ill. Qualitive recommendations for the Great Lakes basin
1. The identification of the pollutant parameters, and of those areas
within the lakes where those parameters exert, or will likely exert, a
critical impact upon water quality, are prerequisites to any remedial
planning.
2. For those parameters identified, an assessment of the contributions of point
sources and their probable reductions, coupled with total levels of reductions
sought, will indicate the likely degree of non-point reductions needed.
3. Based upon unit loadings and present water quality, large tracks of land
in the Great Lakes Basin will require little or no non-point control unless
major land use changes occur in the future. At first approximation, these
likely include the entire L. Superior basin, most of L. Huron, and significant
A ' -\ ' " ? 'i ' * *"
portions of L. Michigan and L. Ontario. f
4. If land derived sediment and phosphorus loadings to L. Erie are generated
relatively uniformly over the L. Erie basin, extensive control measures may
be warranted.
5. Cost effectiveness of pollution control are generally highest at those
locations where or times when pollutants are most concentrated. These typically
include point source discharges, construction sites, vehicular emissions, autumn
leaf drop, etc...
6. Where non-point reductions are needed to achieve desired water quality, local
drainage areas should be assessed for sub-areas within them which are generating
significantly higher levels of pollutants. Control within these "hot-spots" I
will likely return the greatest results for the dollar. '
7. Rapid reductions in the use of leaded automobile fuels, as well as improved
emission control technology, will nearly eliminate the non-point source lead
input into the Great Lakes over the next decade.
8. As high correlations exist between the amount of runoff and associated
•',y
pollutant loads, efforts to maintain or reduce the amount of runoff will
maintain or improve water quality. An awareness of, and appreciation for,
this correlation is especially important in the planning of new or redeveloping
areas. Here runpff reducingjnep-hanisms can be implemented often aj/ Ipwer costs
-------
70
than conventional drainage systems. Principle design concepts include pre-
servation of natural drainageways, elimination of curb and gutter systems, use
of infiltration wells and ditches, maximimization of pervious areas, indirect
rooftop drainage, etc...
9. Public awareness of the causes and effects of, and control alternatives
for, non-point pollution is essential to the success of any control program.
To assure this, an informational/educational program is necessary. Not only
should lay citizenry be targeted for such, but also public officials and
related professionals. Each facet of the program should be developed with a
format and level of sophistication appropriate for each target audience.
10. Thousands of new and exotic chemicals are developed yearly, many of which
are discharged into surface waters. The unforseen impacts of one of these may
be swift, disastrous and long term. Witness the case of PCB's.
It is becoming increasingly more important to improve those mechanisms
' ' i *H
that guard against further occurences. A twofold approach is suggested,
both to strengthen and upgrade the scientific components of monitoring and
analysis, and also to facilitate the resultant institutional response. The
speed with which the latter process reacts will likely determine the criticality,
severity and eventual effectiveness of control measures. Those agencies with
control responsibility should be empowered to react promptly to problems that
arise.
-------
U S. Environmental Protection
Glf4PO Library Collection (PL-
77Vst Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, II 60604-3590
------- |