Lower Fox River Basin Overview

The Lower Fox River basin is located in northeastern Wisconsin and encompasses the following counties: Brown, Calumet, Outagamie, and Winnebago. The 638 square mile (1,654 square kilometers) drainage basin is bordered by the Twin Door Kewaunee basin to the north and east, the Manitowoc River basin to the south and east, the Upper Fox River basin to the south, the Wolf River basin to the west and the Upper Green Bay basin to the north.

The Lower Fox River empties a drainage basin of 6,349 square miles (including drainage from the Wolf River and Upper Fox River basins), flowing northeast from the outlet of Lake Winnebago to the bay of Green Bay. The Fox River Valley is one of Wisconsin's most urbanized and industrialized areas. Most of these urban areas are close to the river and localized urban and industrial runoff has contributed to water quality problems. Urban nonpoint sources include runoff from existing urban areas including established commercial, industrial, freeways and residential land uses. The basin also contains many rich farmlands, which also contributes to the water quality problems in the area. Nonpoint sources include runoff from barnyards, areas winterspread with livestock manure, eroding agricultural lands and streambank erosion, cattle accessing the streams, and other poor landuse practices.

Water quality studies reveal that most of the Lower Fox River Basin streams and lower Green Bay suffer from excessive loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria and heavy metals resulting in: degraded aquatic habitat and an unbalanced fish community with low populations and limited diversity; sedimentation and excessive nutrient levels resulting in an advanced state of eutrophication; and high levels of toxic materials in bottom sediments and invertebrate organisms consumed by fish.

The Lower Fox River Basin has been given statewide attention for improving and protecting water quality. Three watersheds: the East River, the Apple and Ashwaubenon Creeks and Duck Creek, have been selected as priority watersheds under the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program. The three remaining watersheds have been ranked "High" for possible selection, Plum Creek, Fox River/Appleton and Little Lake Butte Des Mort Watersheds. The main focus of these projects is to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to streams and rivers by 50% which is necessary for meaningful water quality improvements to occur.

Impoundments and Water Quality

Human-made impoundments or reservoirs on large naturally flowing streams and rivers create major water quality changes. Biological, chemical and physical water quality changes occur following the creation of an impoundment. Physical changes include the creation of a large pool above the dam where water flow is reduced, increasing the amount of time water remains in place. The increase in residence time allows sediment and other solids to settle out and deposit above the dam. However, the impoundments in the Lower Fox have relatively very short retention times. Basically, the impoundments are widenings of the river that slow the water currents down but which do not form a lake except for Little Lake Buttes des Morts.

Generally, however the impoundments act as sediment traps or detention basins. The area above the dam is often shallow. The combination of nutrient-rich sediment deposits and shallow depth create ideal conditions for the growth of aquatic plants including algae. This plant material often becomes a nuisance, limiting recreation. A great deal of time and effort is spent trying to manage nuisance plants (Rasman 1995).

In most impoundents, the large pooled area of water will increase in temperature. However, on the Lower Fox, the temperatures all along the river are greatly influenced by Lake Winnebago. With increased water temperatures, aquatic life habitat is limited to warm or cool water species. Cold water species such as trout are often excluded from river systems that are impounded because of increases in temperature.

Land that is flooded when an impoundment is created may be rich in nutrients and other oxygen demanding chemicals. Studies on impoundments have shown severe to moderate dissolved oxygen depletion (Rasman 1995). Some of the oxygen problems are due to flooding wetlands and changing their function from a Asink@ for nutrients and other oxygen demanding chemicals to an oxygen demanding Asource@ of nutrients and other chemicals.

Removing dams and returning the waters to their original course eliminates many of the problems created by impounding streams and rivers. For example, physical problems, such as increased temperatures, sediment accumulations, and the loss of pools and riffles from the flooding of the natural stream system will naturally restore itself to the original system.

Fisheries Management

The Lower Fox River basins main stem of the Fox River is fragmented by a series of locks and dams that were built in the mid 1800's to aid navigation. These structures impede free movement of fish up and down the river and continue to do so today. With urbanization and industrialization of the Lower Fox River Basin the river became increasingly polluted which virtually extirpated the resident fisheries. With the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 the stage was set for a recovery of the fish populations. Through stocking of native species and migration from Lake Winnebago and the Bay of Green Bays native fish species recolonized the river. Presently, a diverse fish population inhabits the river and its tributaries but contaminants continue to plague the fishery through fish consumption advisories (Bougie 1998). A Sea Lamprey (exotic species) barrier was established at the Rapids Croche Lock and Dam in 1988 (Meyers, 1998). The purpose is to stop the upstream movement of exotic species into the Lake Winnebago, Fox and Wolf River Basins.

Since the State Lab of Hygiene has new lower detection limits for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (0.04 parts per million (ppm)) watershed management and fisheries personnel should investigate PCB detections in fish from the Lower Fox River Basin. Monitoring will be conducted to determine trend levels of PCBs and mercury to update the Fish Consumption Advisory. Presently, the fish consumption advisory splits the Lower Fox River into two sections, Little Lake Butte des Morts (LLBDM) to the De Pere dam and the De Pere dam to the mouth of the Fox River. Collections should continue to occur in both sections of the river. Walleye, northern pike, white bass, yellow perch, white perch, smallmouth bass, channel catfish and carp should be collected in the section of the Fox River from LLBDM to the De Pere dam. Walleye, northern pike, white sucker, white bass, white perch, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, carp and sheepshead should be collected from the De Pere dam to the mouth of the Fox River. Monitoring in the above two reaches of river will cover fish populations in watersheds LF06, LF04, LF03, LF02 and LF01. Watershed LF05 (Duck Creek) does not have much of a resident game fish population, so monitoring within that watershed is not cost-effective. The bulk of the LF05 fish are from Green Bay and fish monitoring in the bay covers many watersheds in the Lower Fox River Basin, Upper Green Bay Basin and the Twin-Door-Kewaunee Basin (Bougie 1998).

Much of the data was obtained from Fish Managers and Water Resources Managers' unpublished reports. Some table information and most narrative explanations and recommendations are based on professional judgment of WDNR field staff. These are the people who have direct contact with the resource and are responsible for resource monitoring and management. A detailed set of references is provided at the end of the Surface Water Quality Report.

Master Planning and Wildlife Management

There are many state wildlife areas within this basin, all of which have master plans. Master plans provide details as to how wildlife lands and other DNR properties, such as scientific areas, state natural areas and others will be managed to protect and enhance the uplands, wetlands, and associated wildlife and plant communities, as well as to provide an expanded land base for a variety of recreational and educational uses. A new master planning process was recently developed and is outlined in Adm.Code NR 44. The Bureau of Facilities and Lands has responsibility for developing and implmenting master plans. Many of the individual master plans for each wildlife area are outdated. This new process will be implemented during the upcoming updates of these plans. The time frame for all plan updates have been identified. In some cases, individual areas will be updated under an Aumbrella master plan.

The Fox River Basin has some unique wildlife species. Two eagle nests occur (in the Mud Creek/Fox River area, Thousand Islands Sanctuary) and one osprey nest near Combined Locks near the Kaukauna Municipal Electric Facility. The Kaukauna Municipal Electric Facility also has a great-blue heron rookery. Concentrations of waterfowl occur on the Fox River as well as the new Appleton detention pond facility near the Aid Association for Lutherans headquarters. Concentrations are generally geese and mallards for the later site but for the Thousand Islands site concentrations of golden eye, mergansers, mallards, and eagles occur in the winter time (Nikolai, 1998).

Recommendations

1.The Lower Fox Basin Basin Team, citizens and other agencies should identify particular actions to benefit water quality for lands identified in master plans so that during the master plan update process, beneficial recommendations will be available (Type B, C).

2. WDNR and the Lower Fox River Basin Team should maintain the Sea Lamprey barrier at the Rapids Croche Lock and Dam, which was established in 1988 (Type B).

Archaeological Sites

Administrators of projects using state and federal funding, assistance, licenses and permits are required by law to consider the effects of their actions on archaeological sites and historic structures. Under the Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program, the Duck, Apple and Ashwaubenon and the East River watershed projects are joint cooperative efforts among federal, state and county agencies as well as the private landowners who volunteer to participate. As a result, the federal Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the state historic preservation statute, s. 44.40, Wis. Stats., have been blended to produce a cultural resource management program that is both compatible to preserving cultural sites and to implementing the watershed project (WDNR 1996).

There are many known archaeological sites within the Lower Fox River Basin in the Duck, Apple and Ashwaubenon Creeks Priority Watershed. Ancestors of the Menominee and Ho Chunk people have lived in the watershed since the ice age (at least 10,000 years ago). The Oneida Reservation, established by Treaty in 1838, also exists within the project area. Prehistoric, historic and archaic Native American villages and settlements constitute the bulk of the known sites; these are primarily located within the Duck Creek and Trout Creek corridors (WDNR 1997).

In addition to the abundant examples of Native American history and culture evident throughout the area, there exists remnants of the first European settlers inhabiting northeastern Wisconsin. These include sawmills, grain mills and remains of Fort Howard within the present-day location of Pamperin Park, Brown County (WDNR 1997).

Archaeological sites in both watersheds will need special consideration when property is considered for development, including road and bridge construction, and when structural best management practices are being considered for the priority watershed. Settling basins, manure storage structures, wetland restoration and streambank or shoreline shaping and riprapping are likely practices that may impact archaeological sites. As discussed above, state and federal law require preservation of archaeological resources within the framework of the nonpoint source program (WDNR 1997). For additional information please refer to the 1997 Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Duck-Apple-Ashwaubenon Creeks Priority Watershed Project.

Conservation Reserve Program

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) benefits the waterfowl resource by providing a unique opportunity to restore wetlands on lands enrolled in the program. This program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recommendations

2. State, federal, and county agencies should work with landowners to identify and protect archaeological resources in all watersheds of the Lower Fox River Basin (Type B).

3. WDNR Wildlife Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff should consider preserving archaeological resources on private lands during wetland restoration projects (Type B).

4. WDNR Wildlife Management, WDNR Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff should ensure preservation of archaeological resources on state and federal lands during wetland restoration projects (Type B).

Stewardship Program

Surface Water Quality

Wisconsin DNR has existing use classification information for three quarters of the total stream miles in the Lower Fox River Basin. Use/classification information can be found in the stream tables within this Surface Water Quality Report. Recommendations are made to conduct basin assessment trend monitoring on many of the rivers and streams to assess long-term water quality trend data in the Lower Fox River Basin System. Basin assessment trend monitoring entails the collection of physical, chemical, and biological parameters as well as flow determinations on a monthly basis for one year at seven sites. The following locations will be monitored during 1997: Apple Creek at CTH D; Ashwaubenon Creek at CTH G; Dutchman Creek at Gross Street; Garners Creek at Hartjes Road; Kankapot Creek at CTH CE; Mud Creek at CTH BB; and Plum Creek at CTH D. Macroinvertebrate samples will be collected in spring and fall. The same sites will be monitored in the future during the Lower Fox River Basin year of assessment (usually every five years). Many of these sites were previously monitored as Amini basin stations, and data will be compared to new information collected to assess long-term water quality trends. For additional information refer to the 1997 Northeast Region Watershed Management and Fish Management and Habitat Protection Monitoring Plan, Watershed Management and Fish Management & Habitat Protection, Green Bay, WI. See the Recommendations Report for basin trend monitoring recommendations on specific watersheds.

The fixed station (ambient) statewide water quality monitoring network was designed to provide baseline water quality and pollutant loading information in all Geographic Management Units (GMUs). All sites will be tied to U.S. Geologic Survey gauging stations where stream flow is measured. The data will be used in making GMU management decisions and evaluating long-term water quality trends. Water chemistry parameters to be monitored in all GMUs include: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids, hardness, bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus series, and other field test parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen, etc...). In addition to the water chemistry analysis, biological and physical data will be collected quarterly. A minimum of one site per GMU, but sometimes two sites, have been identified as Astatewide baseline network@ sites. The Lower Fox River at three locations (De Pere, Neenah/Menasha Channel and Oshkosh (which is in the Upper Fox Basin) were selected as the fixed stations for the Lower Fox River GMU. Monitoring began in the early 1970's and will continue as long as funding is available. See the Recommendations Report for fixed station (ambient) monitoring recommendations on specific watersheds.

Integrated Ecosystem Management (IEM) Projects were developed by each water basin to identify water quality problem areas and to improve these areas utilizing the integrated ecosystem management approach. The Lower Fox River Basin Team is assessing the ecological condition of seven major tributaries to the Lower Fox River. Information gained will be used to prioritize watersheds for improvement. The project directly addresses the cross-program issue of the Great Lakes Waters of Wisconsin by establishing ecosystem indicators and monitoring streams for baseline data. The project goals are designed to monitor waterbodies to effectively gain a holistic understanding of how water quality and habitat conditions are impacting their respective aquatic communities. The information gained from this project will be used to prioritize which waterbodies are most critical for targeting in order to improve the overall water quality and fisheries habitat in the Lower Fox River Basin. Assessments will include: fishery structure, evaluating current habitat conditions, measuring water quality and establishing gaging stations for flow and nutrient determinations. Other parameters collected include: temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, water chemistries and fishery Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) determinations. The following locations were chosen for monitoring: Apple Creek at CTH D; Ashwaubenon Creek at CTH G; Dutchman Creek at CTH H; Garners Creek at Hartjes Road; Kankapot Creek at CTH CE; Mud Creek at CTH BB; and Plum Creek at CTH D. Monitoring began in July, 1997 and is scheduled for completion at the end of 1999, with evaluation of the project to be complete by the end of 2000. For additional information on this IEM project refer to the 1997 Lower Fox River Basin IEM Biennium Project Proposal. See the Recommendations Report for IEM Project recommendations on specific watersheds.

Sediment Monitoring

Since little or no sediment data exist for major tributaries to the Fox River in the Lower Fox River Basin, this plan recommends sediment sampling (priority pollutant screening) to determine the presence and extent of contamination and to develop a sediment inventory for the basin. Inventory data is also useful for comparing contaminated sediments to background levels to determine the degree of pollution problems. There are nine tributaries that should be monitored in conjunction with the IEM Project: Apple Creek, Ashwaubenon Creek, Dutchman Creek, Garners Creek, Kankapot Creek, Mud Creek, Plum Creek, Beaver Dam Creek and Neenah Slough. Most sites are located in rapidly urbanizing areas where the potential for contaminated sediment exists. For additional information refer to the NER 1997 Monitoring Plan. See the Recommendations Report for sediment monitoring recommendations on specific watersheds.

Biomonitoring

Ambient toxicity tests are scheduled for seven major tributaries to the Lower Fox River during high and low flow events in 1998. There are seven tributaries to be monitored: Apple Creek, Ashwaubenon Creek, Dutchman Creek, Garners Creek, Kankapot Creek, Mud Creek and Plum Creek. The test are conducted the same as the effluent tests, however receiving water samples are typically grab instead of 24 hour composite samples. Standard whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests: Acute WET tests measure lethality by exposing aquatic organisms to effluent samples; Chronic WET tests measure reproductive and growth effects. Both WET tests will be performed. This information will be used to determine background levels of toxicity in the tributaries to the Lower Fox River. See the Recommendations Report for monitoring recommendations on specific watersheds.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are the maximum amounts of specific pollutants (point and nonpoint sources) a waterbody can receive each day while still meeting state-designated water quality standards and uses. The Federal Clean Water Act (section 303[d]) and WDNR require states to develop TMDLs for waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards. Each state, including Wisconsin, is responsible for developing and prioritizing its own list of waterbodies for which TMDLs must be developed. WDNR staff will work in partnership with interested parties and stakeholders during each stage of the TMDL process to achieve fishable and swimmable waters throughout the state.

The TMDL approach provides an opportunity to compare and evaluate the environmental benefits and costs of different control strategies for different pollutants. In this way, a TMDL can be used as the basis for developing the least-cost mix of controls initiated by this process.

Wisconsin's TMDL strategy involves each of the five WDNR regions to identify impaired waterbodies, which will then be prioritized according to criteria developed by the WDNR and stakeholders. Prioritizing waterbodies for TMDL development will include evaluating a waterbody's risk to human health, wildlife and aquatic life, and assessing the waterbody's viability as aquatic habitat. This prioritized list will be the launching point for developing the TMDLs.

Developing TMDLs requires identifying all sources and loads of pollutants causing impairments in the waterbody, developing goals for targeted pollutants or other impairing factors, and identifying controls necessary to reduce the loads so the waterbody can once again support its designated uses. After a TMDL has been implemented, the mix of controls will be evaluated for effectiveness and further action.

Water quality modeling and other analyses are conducted to identify how much pollution the waterbody can receive and still meet standards, and to predict possible future contributions from point and nonpoint sources.

Five areas in the Lower Fox River Basin were identified in 1996 as high priority impaired waters of the state: the Lower Fox River segment 3 (7.3 miles impaired), the Lower Fox River segment 2 (25.1 miles impaired), the Lower Fox River segment 1 (7.6 miles impaired), Green Bay RAP AOC (inner bay of Green Bay) (7.3 miles impaired), and the Neenah Slough (3 miles impaired), (1996 303(d) list to EPA).

WDNR has submitted an additional list of waterbodies to EPA (in 1998) to comply with Federal Regulations. This additional provides a comprehensive list of impaired waterbodies that would benefit from the development and implementation of TMDL analyses. The proposed additional waterbodies in the Lower Fox River Basin include: Dutchman Creek (0-7 miles impaired), Duck Creek (0-32 miles impaired), Trout Creek (0-8 miles impaired), East River (0-39 miles impaired) and Apple Creek (0-24 miles impaired) (1997 303(d) list to EPA). Additional streams were not listed due to lack of data. Refer to the recommendations report to see list of streams by watershed. The third round of 303(d) waterbodies to EPA is scheduled for the year 2000.

Waterfront and Streambank Grant Programs

Many of Wisconsin's towns, villages and cities were founded near rivers or streams. This is especially so in the Lower Fox River, which was a gateway the Mississippi and the site of the early settlements by Native American Tribes and European explorers. All of the Lower Fox=s major urban areas are located adjacent to Green Bay, the Fox River and their tributaries. While the river is not directly used for drinking water, groundwater and surface water from Lake Michigan/Green Bay, which are used for drinking water, are directly connected to and influenced by the quality of water in the Lower Fox River. In addition, recreational use of the Fox and its tributaries has increased markedly in the past 10 or more years since major improvements in quality have been visibly apparent. With this increased interest in natural waters, communities have turned toward the river...both figuratively and literally, to enjoy its amenities. To continue restoration of these waterfront communities, protection of scenic beauty, fisheries and water quality can be enhanced through the enactment of local ordinances and state grant programs.

Urban Rivers Grants Program

The Urban Rivers Grants Program consists of state grants to counties, cities, villages, towns and tribal units of government for the acquisition of land adjacent to rivers and streams in urban areas. The objectives of the program are to:

1. Improve outdoor recreation opportunities by increasing access to urban rivers for a variety of public uses.
2. Revitalize the economy through improving the environmental quality in urban river corridors.
3. Preserve and revitalize historical, cultural or natural areas.

The land to be acquired must be on or adjacent to a river in an urban area, and the acquisition must be part of an outdoor recreation plan adopted by the local unit of government. Applications are due May 1st of each year. WDNR Bureau of Community Financial Assistance administers this grant program. Contact the Northeast Region Headquarters office for more information and applications.

Streambank Acquisition or Easements

Municipalities are also eligible for funds to acquire land or easements along streambanks for the purpose of water quality and habitat protection. Eligible projects are those that are intended primarily for conservancy area and passive greenways. Only low impact recreation is permitted on property acquired by this grant since the main goal is water quality protection. WDNR Bureau of Community Financial Assistance administers these grants. Contact the Northeast Regional Headquarters office for more information and applications.

Recommendations

5. All communities within the Lower Fox River Basin located on a stream or river are encouraged to critically review their current and future protection measures and recreational needs of their local waterbody via the planning process (Type C).

6. Communities within the Lower Fox River Basin located on a stream or river that have completed a plan that identifies land acquisition needs along a waterway are encouraged to apply to the Urban Rivers Grant Program or the Streambank Acquisition or Easement Grant Program for funding to implement portions of their plan (Type C).

Forestry best management practices are designed to protect fish and other aquatic organisms by minimizing nonpoint source pollution during forest management activities and recommend that forest management activities follow BMPs as outlined in Wisconsin=s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality: Field Manual. In areas where rivers and streams are flanked by wooded, steep topography, timber harvesting should follow BMPs outlined in the manual. Also, the Managed Forest Tax Law offers tax incentives to private land owners and requires forest management plans that incorporate Best Management Practices. However, over 80% of the land must be in timber management. Care should be taken in the development of local ordinances to allow continued management of timber harvest lands above the 80% threshold for those properties enrolled in the program so that these lands do not become ineligible for grant dollars and therefore likely to be sold for development. Other programs that affect forest resources and water quality include the Stewardship Incentive Program, the Forestry Incentives Program and the Agricultural Conservation Program (Cooper, 1998).

The DNR's Urban Forestry Program has a grant program which annually distributes $600,000 to encourage the planting of trees in urban centers. The development of tree canopies in urban areas has been shown to benefit stormwater management (American Forests, 1996). Information regarding this program can be obtained by contacting the Regional Urban Forestry Coordinators.

Planning

Stormwater Management

Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution

Urban nonpoint source pollution is a problem in many parts of the basin, particularly in the Green Bay, Appleton, Kaukauna, De Pere, Neenah, Menasha and Wrightstown areas and in developing areas around the Fox River in Brown, Calumet, Outagamie, and Winnebago Counties. Urban nonpoint source pollution takes two general forms: stormwater running off impervious surfaces such as rooftops, parking lots and streets, carrying sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants and sediment-laden water flowing from development sites into streams and lakes.

Characteristics of stormwater

Rainfall and snowmelt runoff is a major problem for surface water quality in many developed areas. In urban areas, a large percentage of land surface in developed areas is covered by impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement, which collect and channel pollutant-laden stormwater. Principle water quality problems for urban streams result from the following factors:

• Stream channel modifications, including straightening and lining with concrete.
• High loading of pollutants, including sediment, nutrients, bacteria, heavy metals, and other toxic materials.
• Hydrologic disturbances, including flashy high flows, and loss of base flow.
• Streambank erosion due to flash high flow.

Studies conducted in Madison, Milwaukee and Eau Claire documented levels of metals, suspended solids, and nutrients in stormwater effluent that exceeded some in-stream water quality standards for stormwater runoff effluent. Stormwater runoff is a definitive source of pollutants, which can be a significant cause of surface water quality degradation.

Monitoring of stormwater runoff from seven drainage basins in the City of Madison, WI was conducted from April 1993 through November 1994 by the U.S. Geological Survey (Open File Report 95-733, 1996). Seven different urban land uses were analyzed for inorganic and organic constituents. The data illustrate the flushing action of spring rains in urban areas, particularly from industrial, high-density residential, highway and shopping center (parking lots) land uses, into waterways. Generally, the level of total zinc was highest and most frequent in industrial, highway and shopping center (parking lot) land uses. The few instances in which semi-volatile organics were found at levels higher than the limits of detection took place in industrial, high-density residential, highway, and shopping center land uses in March through May. The level of total phosphorus in stormwater peaked in high-density residential areas (2.38 mg/l) in November, 1993, while generally, the level of total nitrogen in stormwater was consistently higher in the high-density residential and university site stormwater samples.

Stormwater Regulation

The management and regulation of stormwater is divided among federal, state county and local governments, depending on the land's status of incorporation and size and the activities affecting stormwater on the land.

Municipal Stormwater

Under Phase I regulations at the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently requires cities with populations greater than 100,000 to adopt and implement a stormwater management plan to control discharge of pollutants. Phase II federal stormwater regulations, which are currently under development, will require municipal stormwater discharge permits for certain municipalities with populations less than 100,000. In Wisconsin, the EPA has delegated the authority to administer comparable stormwater regulations to the DNR. Under Chapter 216, Wisconsin Administrative Code, the following municipalities are required to obtain coverage under a municipal stormwater discharge permit: Madison, Milwaukee; municipalities in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Green Bay, Allouez, Ashwaubenon, De Pere, Marinette, Sheboygan and Superior); municipalities in a priority watershed with a population of 50,000 or more and other municipalities identified by the DNR meeting the criteria for permitting in NR 216.

However, Phase II stormwater regulations that are now being proposed by the EPA would drop the acreage threshold for a construction site requiring coverage under a stormwater discharge permit down to one acre. Consequently, like other states with delegated authority from the EPA to administer the stormwater discharge program, Wisconsin will need to modify its regulator program to address these smaller construction sites if the mandate survives at the federal level (Bertolacini, 1998).

To address flooding and control water quantity, the Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) requires municipalities to perform floodplain mapping and management plan development to receive federal flood insurance.

Regulation of stormwater at the local level is generally confined to developing plans that "detain" water at some predetermined level -- before development occurs -- during the plat review and permit approval process. This local regulatory action takes place through voluntary ordinance development and its effectiveness hinges on enforcement, which requires resources and expertise in a time of diminishing public funds. Further, while site specific management helps with localized flood impacts and erosion, working with a larger picture, through comprehensive planning, is more effective water management strategy.

Industrial Stormwater

Under NR 216, discharges of stormwater from certain facilities require coverage under an industrial stormwater discharge permit. The owner or operator of the permitted industrial facility is required to develop and implement a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan. The plan must be designed to ensure that there are practices in place to reduce exposure of industrial materials to stormwater, such as good housekeeping, spill prevention and cleanup and structural and non-structural controls.

Construction Site Erosion Control

As land is developed and disturbed, sediment moving off-site can be significant unless proper erosion control measures are implemented. A study in the Menomonie River Watershed in northwest Wisconsin found over half of the sediment load to the river was produced from the 7 percent of the watershed under construction (WDNR 1986).

Regulation of construction site erosion falls under several different programs in the State of Wisconsin. Locally, municipalities are required to adopt and enforce the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) under a program administered by the Department of Commerce (DOC). The UDC contains provisions to control erosion during construction of one and two family dwellings. Implementation of the UDC erosion control provisions is only as effective as the local municipality's willingness and ability toe enforce the provisions. Oversight of a municipality's effectiveness at administering the UDC is handled by the DOC.

Larger construction sites involving land disturbing activities affecting five or more acres are regulated by the DNR's Chapter NR 216 or equivalent programs administered by the Department of Commerce or the Department of Transportation. NR 216 requires a landowner of a larger construction site to obtain coverage under a construction site stormwater discharge permit. The landowner is required to ensure that a site specific erosion control plan and stormwater management plan are developed and implemented at the construction site. Typical sites regulated by the DNR include residential subdivision development, industrial and business park development, parks and golf courses, and private local and county roads. Through state statute and interagency agreements, regulation of erosion control at larger commercial building sites is administered by the Department of Commerce, and state interstate highways, regardless of size, are handled by the Department of Transportation.

The jurisdictional overlap and division of regulatory responsibility between the DNR, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation (DOT), and local governments regarding erosion control has grown complex. Two areas that currently fall between the cracks' of erosion control include: 1) erosion from construction sites that do not include one or two family dwelling and disturbing less than five acres, and that are not regulated by a voluntary municipal or county ordinance; and 2) erosion from non-DOT road and bridge construction that disturb less than five acres and that are not regulated by a voluntary municipal or county ordinance. Currently, there is no state-level mechanism to address the first category. The Department of Commerce has been given the authority by state statute to develop a uniform commercial building code for erosion control regardless of the size of the commercial development, but this code has not yet been promulgated. As for the second category, the DNR and the DOT have signed a joint Memorandum of Understanding that addresses water quality impacts during construction of DOT--administered projects, typically state and interstate highway construction. Under the agreement, these transportation projects administered by the DOT must have and erosion control plan that is implemented throughout the construction period. However, many small-scale transportation projects funded with local money are not required to implement erosion controls. Local ordinances passed by a county, city, village or town are the only tools to protect water resources under these circumstances.

However, the effectiveness of existing erosion control provisions is not known. Observations by DNR staff indicate that local control of erosion in various municipalities has room for improvement. Observations range from no erosion control measures at major development sites to inadequate or improperly installed management practices (ie., silt fences apparently only serving to mark the limits of the projects). At other sites poor or nonexistent follow-up maintenance measures were implemented.

While some developers genuinely attempt to control erosion, others have not initiated effective controls. The need for heightened awareness about the consequences of, and laws relating to, erosion control is evident. A better understanding of problems associated with construction site erosion by developers and contractors, coupled with improved enforcement of existing ordinances by local government, should be a priority.

During the past few years, the UW Extension has held a series of workshops on construction site erosion control for developers and contractors. The workshop series outlined the major features of the Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook (WR-222 92 REV). Community ordinances should remain consistent with current administrative rules and the model ordinance provided in the Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook. In addition, incorporating new information about the effectiveness of BMPs into local ordinances and outreach strategies by municipalities and counties would help resolve stormwater problems. For example, in a 1996 report entitled, AUrban Ecological Analysis for Milwaukee, WI,@ describes and encourages the benefits of developing and maintaining tree canopy cover through tree planting in communities (American Forests, 1996). Implementing this type of practice in community design or open space plans would help reduce stormwater problems.

Chapter 144.266 of the Wisconsin State Statutes give municipalities the option enacting local construction site erosion control and stormwater management plans. In Dane County, 23 of 27 cities and villages have an erosion control ordinance. The problem is not with the ordinances, which could have more teeth to encourage better compliance, the problem is with enforcement. Possible reasons for the lack of enforcement include too few resources; inadequate staff, training or knowledge; and fragmented responsibility and authority for administration and enforcement.

Stormwater Management Planning

The thorough nature of comprehensive stormwater planning implies long-range and geographically broad consideration of flows and water quality during and after development of major land parcels, such as highways, industrial parks and residential neighborhoods. With few exceptions, maintenance of pre-development hydraulics is most desirable. The large-scale nature of comprehensive planning allows the integration of resources to reach multiple regulatory and management goals, such as those of FEMA, NR 216, sewer service area planning, local water management regulations and even management for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Further implementation of the municipal stormwater discharge permit program under NR216 and the final Phase II regulations promulgated by the EPA will require some municipalities that meet certain criteria to obtain municipal stormwater discharge permits and develop comprehensive stormwater management programs.

Several communities, recognizing the importance of sound planning in the field of stormwater management, contracted with consulting firms to complete comprehensive stormwater management plans. The purpose of these studies was to define inadequacies in the existing stormwater conveyance systems, determine the effects of future development on these systems, and evaluate stormwater management alternatives to properly address the problems future development will bring to both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff in accordance with the goals and objectives established by the communities.

Foth & Van Dyke (FVD) completed a comprehensive stormwater management plan for two developing areas near the city of Appleton (Apple Creek and Garner's Creek 1996). These developing areas would cause increasing drainage problems if not properly controlled. Improvements to water quality and preparing for upcoming NR 216 requirements were also a concerns. With developed communities downstream, proper stormwater management was critical to Appleton from environmental, growth, liability, and "good Neighbor" standpoints. Another area which was identified for future development was near the Fox Valley Greyhound Park in Kaukauna. This site included a 100-acre tract of agricultural land, approximately 64 acres of which would be developed. Foth & Van Dyke prepared two site development plans; the selected alternative sited the kennels across a stream and made the best use of space on the property, but required a roadway and bridge be built to provide access to the kennel compound. The race track has now closed due to financial difficulties. Another project off of Ballard Road (Appleton) included development of a wetland/detention pond to manage runoff from the nearby industrial facility. This area also included the use of wetland soils for natural revegetation of the disturbed area and to create a wetland setting. A proposed public bike trail was also in the site plan.

Foth & Van Dyke completed a stormwater management plan for the town of Bellevue (1996). The rapid development throughout the town has caused increased stormwater runoff throughout the drainage ways. The added stormwater runoff results in increased flow velocities. The higher stormwater flows in combination with the silty-loamy soils found along the banks of the lower reaches make for high erosion potential and diminished vegetation growth. Streambank stabilization was emphasized in this plan. In order to effectively remedy the streambank erosion throughout the town of Bellevue, it was necessary to walk each stream corridor and prioritize the affected areas for an annual maintenance and financing plan. Willow Creek, Bower Creek and the East River were identified as having severe erosion problems. FVD assisted the town of Bellevue in obtaining East River Priority Watershed Grant Funds to cost share the stabilization of approximately 4,000 linear feet of streambank along Willow Creek. Funds were also secured for streambank stabilization along the lower reaches of Bower Creek. Like Bower Creek, various methods of shoreline protection were identified as being the most effective for a specific location along the river.

Streambank stabilization projects were implemented within the village of Ashwaubenon. The Fox River, Dutchman Creek and various tributary streams were selected for rehabilitation. The projects included primarily regrading, geotextile placement and riprap armoring along both large rivers and small streams. Alternative methods used for special needs included use of landscape stone, small damming facilities, geomatting, bio-engineered vegetative stabilization and detention storage for peak flow reduction and sedimentation. The village of Ashwaubenon also worked with FVD to resolve several urban stormwater problems. These included eliminating neighborhood street flooding, accommodating future residential growth north of a wetland area, and at the same time, comply with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers orders to restore a wetland area to its original state.

Foth & Van Dyke is currently working on a stormwater management plan for the town of Lawrence and should have it completed in early 1998 (Leibman 1997). Other plans which are ongoing/completed in the Lower Fox River Basin include: St. Mary's Hospital Stormwater Management Alternatives Project (ongoing) and Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the city of De Pere (ongoing). Both plans are being developed by Rust Environment & Infrastructure (REI). The city of De Pere contracted with REI to embark on a feasibility study to identify critical sources of nonpoint source pollution and develop an action plan for carrying out the recommended approach (Rust 1997). The city of De Pere should be recognized for its proactive role in stormwater management. Through the development of stormwater detention ponds they have addressed flooding, water quality and quantity issues.

As communities begin the stormwater management process, financing becomes an important issue. A good reference document communities can utilize during this process is called Financing of Stormwater Management for Urban Areas by Neal O'Reilly of R.A. Smith & Associates, Inc. The document assists communities with choosing available funding options to develop and implement an adequate stormwater management program.

Recommendations

7. Stormwater control ordinances, which address both water quality and quantity, should be adopted and enforced by all municipalities within the Lower Fox River Basin with constructed stormwater runoff systems. (Traditionally only stormwater volume is documented and/or controlled water quality considerations for receiving waters must be addressed in the design controls and ordinance) (Type C).

8. All communities in the Lower Fox River Basin should adopt and enforce a construction site erosion control ordinance, encompassing construction of single home building sites, subdivisions, industrial and commercial sites (Type C).

9. Cities, townships, and counties in the Lower Fox River Basin should adopt a construction site erosion control ordinance for land disturbing activities not covered under administrative rules such as locally funded road and bridge construction (Type C).

10. Lower Fox River Basin Team and Watershed Management staff should outline minimum requirements for placement of culverts in streams for Chapter 30 reviews, to minimize fisheries impacts (Type C).

11. The Lower Fox River Basin Team should work to encourage increased tree canopy cover through tree planting in communities in the Lower Fox River Basin to reduce stormwater and nonpoint source impacts (Type B, C).

Floodplain and Shoreland Zoning

Effective administration of floodplain and shoreland zoning ordinances is necessary to protect life, health, property and the natural values of shorelands. The demand for administrative services related to these ordinances will continue to increase as the trend in rural development continues. The individual counties must be aware of these needs and allocate staff accordingly.

Increasing development of lake shorelines throughout the basin threatens the natural integrity of waterbodies and is a priority water quality issue in the basin. Much of the lake shoreline has been sold for residential development. Shoreline alterations have negative impacts on the productivity, diversity and natural scenic beauty of lakes. Much wetland habitat has been lost to shoreline development. The WDNR is interested in managing riparian zones to protect water quality and aquatic life resources, whatever the land use may be. The WDNR Water Regulation and Zoning Program protects the riparian zone through state statues (Chapter 30) and with the local county zoning offices. Section 59, Wisconsin State Statutes, requires counties to adopt and administer regulations to control development along shorelands of lakes and streams and within flood plains. Shoreland control is confined to lands within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake, pond, or flowage, or within 300 feet of a river or navigable stream or to the landward side of the flood plain. The WDNR should encourage shoreline management that protects water quality support education efforts for all lakes in the basin

Shoreland District

The Shoreland District Ordinance will require an minimum establishment of 35 foot buffer area along all intermittent and perennial streams. The buffer will be seeded to grass, alfalfa or other close-growing crop that shall be maintained between the farmed area and the edge of the stream. A landowner/operator may be exempt from this provision if the Brown County Land Conservation Department determines that the existing land-use practices are sufficient and no pollution is occurring.

If polluted runoff results from the grazing or pasturing of livestock, the landowner/operator will be required to erect a fence at a minimum distance of one rod (16.5 feet), from the edge of the intermittent or perennial stream or take the appropriate management action for pollution abatement. If a determination is made by the LCD that fencing is required, a provision will be allowed for livestock watering (WDNR 1996).

Recommendations

11. Local Municipalities, townships, and counties within the Lower Fox River Basin should emphasize the administration and enforcement of floodplain and shoreland zoning (Type C).

12. The Bureaus of Watershed Management and Fisheries and Habitat should work with the Bureau of Information and Education to develop educational material on shoreline management to prevent impacts to water resources in the Lower Fox River Basin (Type B).

13. Other counties in the basin should develop a Shoreland District Ordinance similar to Brown County, to protect water quality in the Lower Fox River Basin (Type B)

Manure Storage

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) assists county land conservation departments in developing animal waste storage ordinances. These ordinances are intended to prevent water pollution by ensuring that animal waste storage facilities are properly located and constructed. The ordinances are enacted through the authority of s.92.16 Wis. Stats. Counties which currently enforce manure storage ordinances (and effective date) include: Brown County Land Conservation Department (LCD) (April 1986), Calumet LCD (June 1989), Outagamie Zoning Administration (ZA) (July 1985) and Winnebago LCD & ZA (May 1985). WDNR supports these counties with the enforcement of this ordinances

Recommendation

14. County LCD's and Zoning Administrators should enforce the manure storage ordinances in the Lower Fox River Basin (Type C)

Antidegradation

The creation of Chapter NR 207 AWater Quality Antidegradation@ and changes to NR 102 AWater Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters,@ Wisconsin Administrative Code, has led to a new set of stream classifications. This new set of stream classifications ranks surface waters allowing DNR to identify which waterbodies, because of their particular resource values and water quality, are most important to Wisconsin citizens. When coupled with other administrative codes, NR 207 will also serve to protect surface waters and reflect their values and priorities by determining what kind of environmental safeguards DNR will apply to new or increased wastewater discharges. The purpose of the antidegradation policy is to add to the protection of the high quality streams and lakes in the state.

The existing Wisconsin antidegradation policy found in Chap. NR 102 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code states:

No waters of the state shall be lowered in quality unless it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the Department that such a change is justified as a result of necessary economic and social development, provided that no new or increased effluent interferes with or becomes injurious to any assigned uses made of or presently possible in such waters.

To achieve this, the antidegradation classification system found in the recently amended NR 102 identifies five classes of surface waters.

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) have the highest resource values, excellent water quality, and high quality fisheries. ORW waters include those with unique characteristics that are largely unaffected by cultural activities. New or increased wastewater discharges to these waterbodies must provide effluent quality equal or better than background water quality of the receiving waterbody. This classification includes wild and scenic rivers and most Class I trout streams (those Class I trout waters that had no existing permitting discharge at the time of ORW/ERW designation). There are no ORW waters in the Lower Fox River Basin.

Exceptional Resources Waters (ERW) have excellent water quality and valued fisheries. Thse streams are generally those Class I trout streams that had an existing discharge at the time of program developent or they may be Class II, III trout waters or a WWSF with with significant resources value, exceptional biodiversity and high water quality. The antidegradation procedure for these waterbodies is similar to that for outstanding resource waters, except that some minimal degradation due to a new wastewater discharges may be allowed if that discharge is necessary to solve an environmental or public health problem. There are no ERW waters in the Lower Fox River Basin.

The Great Lakes and their tributaries will receive special protection from the impacts of toxic substances that bioaccumulate (or concentrate as the substance moves up the food chain). Any new or increased discharge that contains a substance with a high bioaccumulation factor will be subject to antidegradation procedures. The discharge of toxic pollutants to Great Lakes waters are restricted under NR105, 106 to prevent contaminants from building up in fish and sediments and threatening public health.

Fish and Aquatic Life Waters can support a balanced community of fish and other aquatic organisms. These waters receive additional protection from new or increased wastewater discharges under the new antidegradation rules. In evaluating new or increased discharges, WDNR must determine if the discharge will cause a significant lowering of water quality. Some degradation will be allowed only if there are no other reasonable pollution control options.

Variance Waters (limited use waters) are not able to support a fishery or a balanced community of aquatic organisms due to natural conditions or historical human activities. No special protection is provided for these waters under the antidegradation rules. However, these waters must still meet minimum water quality standards under Administrative Code 104.

Fox-Wolf Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Initiative

The Fox-Wolf Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Initiative was developed in response to public demands for a cost-effective approach to clean water (McLennan 1994). The Initiative provides a long range framework for integrating existing WDNR programs with other agencies, local governments, and public and private sector interests. The initiative is designed to guide water quality restoration and protection efforts over the next two decades and will be modified as needed to meet the needs of the resources and public being served.

The overall goal of the Initiative is to undertake vigorous nonpoint source pollution abatement to restore a balanced aquatic ecosystem and to protect waterbodies from future polluted runoff impacts. It is estimated that polluted runoff delivers more than 1.5 million tons of sediment, or total suspended solids (TSS), and 2.6 million pounds of phosphorus (P) in to the water of the Fox-Wolf Basin each year (White 1994). These waters have been unable to assimilate this level of pollution discharge. Through time, the water quality and fish and wildlife habitat of Green Bay, Lake Winnebago, and many of their tributaries have been degraded and no longer fully support public and ecological uses.

The Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basin Water Quality (SWRRBwq) model was used to identify watersheds in the Fox-Wolf Basin that are the largest contributors of phosphorus and sediments to lake Winnebago and Green Bay (White 1994). The model identifies watersheds based on estimated pollution loads. The highest contributors to the Lower Green Bay from the Lower Fox River Basin include: LF01 East River (currently a priority watershed), LF02 Apple-Ashwaubenon Creeks (currently a priority watershed), LF03 Plum Creek (ranked high for streams via the NPS Basin Plan critieria), LF05 Duck Creek (currently a priority watershed) and LF06 Little Lake Butte des Morts (ranked high for streams by the NPS Basin Plan Criteria).

Several of the SWRRBwq model analysis and the WDNR watershed rankings are not consistent. The SWRRBwq is a model which analyzes sediment and phosphorus pollution loadings in the basin, and the Basin Plan Ranking Process ranks individual streams, lakes and groundwater based on chemical, biological and physical data. Regional Watershed Management should reevaluate the nonpoint source ranking for watershed eligibility and to support the nonpoint source modeling efforts completed by Northeast Wisconsin Waters for Tomorrow, now called Fox-Wolf Basin 2000.

The SWRRBwq estimates suggest that the Lake Winnebago East (UF02) contributes 30 percent of the phosphorus and 30 percent of the sediment loads to Lake Winnebago. Two more watersheds, Fox River Berlin (UF06) and the Fond du Lac River (UF03), contribute an additional 30 percent phosphorus and 38 percent sediment loads. The relative contribution per watershed decreases substantially for the remaining watersheds in the Lower Fox and Wolf River basins. The Remaining nine watersheds (WR01, 04, 08, 13, LF01, 02, 03, 05, & UF07) combined account for just 30 percent of the phosphorus loading (Syal 1994).

Current or past priority watershed projects include: LF01, LF02, LF05, UF02, UF03, UF07 WR01. Current eligible watersheds ranked during the basin planning process include: LF03, LF04, LF06, WR08, WR13. Current ineligible watersheds include WR04 and UF06.

To restore the attractiveness, utility and ecological integrity of the Lower Green Bay, Lake Winnebago and tributary lakes and streams, and to prevent future degradation, the Initiative identifies tasks deemed "essential" for ecosystem recovery. A comprehensive basinwide reduction in nonpoint source pollution will require water quality managers, local governments, farmers and others to:

• implement and achieve 70-90 percent participation in 17-18 new priority watershed projects, at least six of which are crucial for reducing pollutant loads to Lake Winnebago and Green Bay.
• adopt local water quality ordinances, policies and programs to improve and protect water quality.
• encourage sustainable agricultural practices (rotational grazing, reduced tillage, etc.) to protect water quality.
• improve and protect shoreland habitat through voluntary programs.
• enhance stormwater management and construction site erosion control in urban and urbanizing areas.
• create greater public awareness of the impact of different land uses and management on water quality.

In addition, WDNR recommendations to private land owners should follow the Biodiversity Report (WDNR 1995) and should utilize an integrated approach to decision making. The report presents WDNR strategy for conserving biological diversity, which is the entire spectrum of life forms and the many ecological processes that support them. It provides an overview of the issues associated with biodiversity and a common point of reference for incorporating the conservation of biodiversity into a management framework (WDNR 1995).

The Initiative is scheduled to occur over the next 20 years, beginning in the 1995-97 biennium and concluding with the completion of the last priority watershed project for the basins. The ultimate success of the Initiative depends upon developing strong partnerships between local governments, user groups, regional planning commissions, and state and federal agencies, and to maintaining a strong commitment at the state level. For additional information please reference the Fox-Wolf Basin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Initiative draft report (WDNR 1994).

Recommendations

1. WDNR Bureau of Watershed Management with the Lower Fox River Basin Team should work with stakeholders to implement new NPS projects in the Lower Fox River Basin (Type B).

2. Fish Management Habitat Protection and Lands Wildlife Management staff should accelerate acquisition and easements of riparian habitat in existing project areas to restore and protect streambanks (Type B and C).

3. Multiple WDNR programs within the Lower Fox River Basin Team should work with county land conservation departments, regional planning commissions, counties, cities, towns, villages and other groups to implement recommendations in the Fox-Wolf Basin Initiative to address polluted runoff and prevention in the Lower Fox River Basin (Type A, B and C).

4. Multiple WDNR programs should work with the county land conservation departments, regional planning commissions, counties, cities, towns, villages in the Lower Fox River Basin to create greater public awareness of land management's influence on water quality (Type A, B and C).