HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity_Wide_SWMP_Final_Report_12-22-2014 Prepared for: Prepared by:
City of Oshkosh AECOM
Oshkosh, Wisconsin Middleton, Wisconsin
60268145
December 2014
City of Oshkosh Citywide Stormwater
Quality Management Plan Update
Prepared for: Prepared by:
City of Oshkosh AECOM
Oshkosh, Wisconsin Middleton, Wisconsin
60268145
December 2014
City of Oshkosh Citywide Stormwater
Quality Management Plan Update
Prepared for the:
City of Oshkosh
215 Church Avenue
Oshkosh, WI 54903
Ashley Bartlein, P.E.
Prepared By
Chuck Boehm, P.E.
Reviewed By
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AECOM, acknowledges with appreciation, the efforts and
assistance on this project from the City of Oshkosh
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
i
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 Project Setting ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Sawyer Creek ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Campbell Creek .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.3 Fox River ............................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.4 Lake Butte des Morts ............................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.5 Lake Winnebago ................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 Water Quality Regulations and TMDLs ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 WPDES Permit Requirements ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 TMDL Requirements............................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1 TMDL Background ................................................................................................ 3-2
4.0 Stormwater Pollution Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Input ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Hydrologic Basins ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.3 Precipitation .......................................................................................................... 4-5
4.1.4 Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.2 MS4 Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.1 Project Area .......................................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.3 Results: Base Conditions ..................................................................................... 4-8
4.3 MS4 Existing Management Conditions ............................................................................. 4-11
4.3.1 Street Cleaning ................................................................................................... 4-11
4.3.2 Catch Basins with Sumps ................................................................................... 4-11
4.3.3 Grass Swales ...................................................................................................... 4-12
4.3.4 Structural Best Management Practices .............................................................. 4-14
4.3.5 Results: Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 4-18
4.4 TMDL Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.4.1 Project Area ........................................................................................................ 4-19
4.4.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4-20
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
ii
4.4.3 Results: Base Conditions ................................................................................... 4-20
4.4.4 Results: Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 4-23
5.0 Stormwater Pollution Reduction Analysis ................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Identify and Evaluate Structural BMPs to Reduce TSS ...................................... 5-1
6.0 Results .............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 TSS Reduction cost ............................................................................................................. 6-1
List of Tables
Page No.
ES-1 MS4 Annual Loading Results ....................................................................................................... ES-2
ES-2 Summary of MS4 Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency ........................................... ES-3
4-1 Existing Land Use Summary (2004) ............................................................................................... 4-2
4-2 Existing Land Use Summary (2013) ................................................................................................ 4-3
4-3 Base Conditions Pollutant Load by Land Use................................................................................. 4-8
4-4 Infiltration Rate Results per Test Site and Average Rate ............................................................. 4-13
4-5 Grass Swale Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 4-14
4-6 Structural BMP Pollution Reductions ............................................................................................ 4-16
4-7 MS4 Base and Existing Pollution Load Summary Results by Most-Downstream BMP .............. 4-18
4-8 Summary of MS4 Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency ............................................ 4-19
4-9 TMDL Base Conditions Pollutant Load by Land Use .................................................................. 4-21
4-10 TMDL Base and Existing Pollution Load Summary Results by Most-Downstream BMP ........... 4-23
4-11 Summary of TMDL Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency .......................................... 4-24
5-1 BMP Feasibility Evaluation Factors & Scoring Values ................................................................... 5-4
5-2A Physical Characteristics of Potential Wet Detention Basins ........................................................... 5-5
5-2B Wet Detention Basin Scoring and Ranking ..................................................................................... 5-6
5-3 Rain Garden Annual TSS Removal................................................................................................. 5-8
5-4 Biofiltration Annual TSS Removal ................................................................................................... 5-8
5-5 Potential Citywide Biofilter Treatment Level $ Costs ...................................................................... 5-9
6-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Management Practices – TSS Reductions .......................... 6-2
6-2 Proposed BMP Costs ....................................................................................................................... 6-3
6-3 Unit Costs for BMP Construction and Maintenance Estimating ..................................................... 6-4
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
iii
List of Figures
2-1 City Drainage Map .......................................................................................................... follows report
4-1 Project Basins and Water Resources ............................................................................ follows report
4-2 2004 MS4 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................ follows report
4-3 2013 TMDL Existing Land Use ...................................................................................... follows report
4-4 Project Soils: NRCS Hydrologic Group ......................................................................... follows report
4-5 MS4 Excluded Areas ...................................................................................................... follows report
4-6a MS4 Base TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use .................................. follows report
4-6b MS4 Base TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use ..................................... follows report
4-7a MS4 Base TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed ................................ follows report
4-7b MS4 Base TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed ................................... follows report
4-8 MS4 Land Use, TSS, and TP Load Distributions .......................................................................... 4-10
4-9 Street Cleaning ................................................................................................................ follows report
4-10 Modeled Grass Swales ................................................................................................... follows report
4-11 Grass Swale Classification ............................................................................................. follows report
4-12 Structural BMPs .............................................................................................................. follows report
4-13 All Existing BMPs ............................................................................................................ follows report
4-14a MS4 Existing TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use .............................. follows report
4-14b MS4 Existing TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use ................................ follows report
4-15a MS4 Existing TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed ............................ follows report
4-15b MS4 Existing TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed .............................. follows report
4-16 TMDL Excluded Areas .................................................................................................... follows report
4-17 TMDL Land Use, TSS, and TP Load Distributions ....................................................................... 4-22
4-18a TMDL Base TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use ................................ follows report
4-18b TMDL Base TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use .................................. follows report
4-19a TMDL Base TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed .............................. follows report
4-19b TMDL Base TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed ................................ follows report
4-20a MS4 Existing TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use .............................. follows report
4-20b MS4 Existing TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Land Use ................................ follows report
4-21a MS4 Existing TSS Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed ............................ follows report
4-21b MS4 Existing TP Conditions annual Pollutant Load by Watershed .............................. follows report
5-1 Redevelopment Areas .................................................................................................... follows report
5-2 Proposed BMPs .............................................................................................................. follows report
List of Appendices
Appendix A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Documents
Appendix B Pollution Loads by Watershed
Appendix C Grass Swale Infiltration Testing
Appendix D Description of Wet Detention Basins Considered for Stormwater Pollution Control
Appendix E Proposed BMP Implementation Schedule
Figures
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
iv
List of Abbreviations & Acronyms
BMP – Best Management Practice
DP – Dissolved Phosphorus
FCA – Fish Consumption Advisory
GIS – Geographic Information System
MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System
NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation
Service
O&M – Operation and Maintenance
PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PP – Particulate Phosphorus
TMDL – Total Maximum Day Loads
TP – Total Phosphorus
TSS – Total Suspended Solids
USDA – United States Department of
Agriculture
USEPA – United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USGS – United States Geological Survey
WDNR – Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
WinSLAMM – Windows Source Loading and
Management Model
WPDES – Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Throughout this document the terms “WPDES permit,” “Stormwater Permit,” and “MS4 permit” are
used interchangeably to refer to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) General
Permit to discharge under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit
No. WI-S050075-2. This general permit regulates all discharge from the Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) owned and operated by the City of Oshkosh.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
ES-1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Federal and state regulations require communities in Wisconsin to manage the pollution from their
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). In December 2008, the City of Oshkosh’s Citywide
Stormwater Management Plan (2008 Plan) was finalized. The 2008 Plan was created to help comply
with these regulations.
Since the 2008 Plan finalization, numerous updates have been made to both the guidance from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) and the computer model used for the study.
Additionally, with the future establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Upper Fox
River watershed, the current guiding stormwater quality requirements will change. With these
changes in mind, in 2012, the City of Oshkosh (the City) contracted with AECOM to conduct an
update to the Citywide Stormwater Management Plan (2013 Plan Update).
This report documents the methodology and results of the 2013 Plan Update.
Stormwater Pollution Regulations
The City of Oshkosh is subject to stormwater pollution regulations as described in the State of
Wisconsin Administrative Code sections NR 216 and NR 151. The regulations require the City to
apply for and receive coverage under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) permit system. In January, 2007, the City received formal notification from the WDNR that
their stormwater permit was in effect.
The purpose of the NR 216 and NR 151 regulations is to reduce pollution from urban stormwater that
will otherwise enter the state’s lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. The WPDES permit describes six
minimum measures (as set forth originally by the United States Environmental Protection Agency –
USEPA) that are required of the City relative to stormwater management. To comply with the
minimum standards, the City must develop and implement the following programs:
1. Public education and outreach program
2. Public involvement and participation program
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination (program and ordinance)
4. Construction site pollution control (ordinance)
5. Post-construction site stormwater management (ordinance)
6. Pollution prevention (reduce stormwater pollution from municipal operations and the citywide
storm sewer system)
As part of item 6, the WDNR requires that the City reduce stormwater pollution from its “Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System – MS4.” The language in the City’s WPDES permit states:
“2.7.1 To the maximum extent practicable, implementation of stormwater management
practices necessary to achieve a 20% reduction in the annual average mass of total suspended
solids discharging from the MS4 to surface waters of the state as compared to implementing no
stormwater management controls, by March 10, 2008. The permittee may elect to meet the 20%
total suspended solids standard on a watershed or regional basis by working with other
permittee(s) to provide regional treatment that collectively meets the standard.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
ES-2
Note: Pursuant to s. NR 151.13(2), Wis. Adm. Code, the total suspended solids reduction
requirement increases to 40% by March 10, 2013. However, the implementation date of this
requirement was recently delayed by the State of Wisconsin Legislature.”
When TMDLs are calculated for the Upper Fox River watershed, additional reduction targets will be
established.
Stormwater Pollution Modeling
The WDNR outlines the procedures to quantify pollution from the MS4 and to quantify the pollution
reduction achieved by the existing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a computer simulation
model, the stormwater pollution from the City is calculated. A total loading value for the pollutants -
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) - is computed. Currently, pollution
reduction requirements only apply to TSS. Using the model, the following conditions were
determined:
1. The amount of pollution from the City’s stormwater conveyance system under a “base”
condition. The base condition is defined as the pollution that is generated if none of the City’s
existing BMPs are in place. This is the same as a “no management” condition. The base
condition pollution value determined in this step is the target which the amount of pollution
reduction is measured from.
2. The amount of pollution reduction from the City’s current stormwater BMPs. The City
currently uses street cleaning, grass swales, stormwater lift station sumps, biofiltration
devices, and wet detention basins to reduce stormwater pollution. This step establishes the
status of pollution reduction the City is currently achieving.
Results of the Stormwater Pollution Modeling
The results of the pollution modeling are summarized in the following Table ES-1. The table displays
the results of the base and existing conditions modeling for the MS4.
Table ES-1
MS4 Annual Loading Results
Existing
BMPs
Area
(ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Street
Cleaning 5,838 870 721 17% 7.8% 4992 4430 11% 5.1%
Airport
Swales 480 25 0.2 99% 1.3% 206 1 99% 1.9%
City Swales 520 84 9 89% 3.9% 441 50 89% 3.6%
Catch
Basins 1,051 147 101 31% 2.4% 946 744 21% 1.9%
Structural BMPs 2,725 431 165 62% 13.9% 2330 1282 45% 9.6%
None:
No BMP 2,600 355 354 0% 0.0% 2007 2006 0% 0.0%
Total 13,213 1,912 1,351 - 29% 10,923 8,515 - 22%
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
ES-3
Included in the project area are a number County-owned parcels. Specifically: Winnebago County
Fairgrounds, Winnebago County Community Park, Winnebago County Landfill, Winnebago
County Sheriff’s Department / Solid Waste Transfer Station / County Highway Department parcel
and Wittman Regional Airport. In addition, areas covered by the University of Wisconsin –
Oshkosh Campus are also included in the project area. The City is working with the University
and County on individual Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) to confirm inclusion of lands in
MS4 water quality analysis and maintenance responsibilities. Conversations to this point between
the City and the owning agency have initially identified the City as the agency to take on
responsibility for inclusion of the identified areas in the City’s MS4 analysis. However, since the
MOU documents are not yet in place, areas are quantified separately in Table ES-2. The City will
formally take credit for the County-owned parcels once the MOU’s are signed.
Table ES-2
Summary of MS4 Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency
Municipality Area
(ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
City of Oshkosh 11,515 1,775 1,288 27% 25.5% 9,952 7,793 22% 19.8%
Winnebago
County 1,515 106 35 67% 3.7% 788 550 30% 2.2%
University of
Wisconsin -
Oshkosh
183 31 28 9% 0.1% 183 172 6% 0.1%
Total 13,213 1,912 1,351 - 29% 10,923 8,515 - 22%
The results of the pollution modeling show the City is reducing TSS by 26% and TP by 20% citywide,
meeting and exceeding the current 20% TSS reduction requirement. There currently is not a TP
reduction requirement, however, this pollutant (as a measure of nutrient loading) has been reported in
previous water quality analyses and the future TMDLs will establish TP limits.
Limitations of this Study
1. The purpose of this document is to help the City meet the federal and state regulatory
program requirements for stormwater pollution reduction. Flooding issues related to
stormwater conveyance system capacity, or the local river flood elevations, were not
evaluated as part of this study and are evaluated by the City through other studies and where
practical, multi-purpose facilities are considered.
2. This document is a planning level study. Information used to develop the results was based
on available data sources and limited field investigation. The study provides City decision
makers a sound basis for proceeding with a stormwater management program to meet
federal and state stormwater pollution regulations. Structural projects explored as a result of
this study should include detailed engineering and design.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
1-1
1.0 Introduction
The City of Oshkosh contracted with AECOM to develop a Citywide Stormwater Management
Plan, which was finalized in December 2008. The original plan (2008 Plan) documented the City’s
base pollution load, the pollution reduction achieved by best management practices (BMPs) in
place at the time and the steps that needed to be taken to achieve the 20 and 40 percent goals.
Since the original 2008 Plan was finalized, numerous updates have been made to both the
guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that describes how the
analysis must be done and also to the computer model used for the calculations. Additionally,
with the future establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Upper Fox River
watershed, the current stormwater quality requirements will change. With these changes in mind,
the City contracted with AECOM in 2012 to conduct an update to the 2008 Plan.
The City of Oshkosh is regulated under a state-administered program that requires certain
stormwater pollution control activities. The authority and details of the program in Wisconsin are
described in the State’s Administrative Code sections NR 216 and NR 151 and within the City’s
WPDES General (Stormwater) Permit. These current and pending regulations are described in
more detail in Section 3 of this report.
This 2013 Plan Update includes stormwater pollution analyses for three conditions:
1. Base Condition:
a. MS4 - This is a “no controls” condition which reflects the stormwater pollution
generated from the City of Oshkosh under the land use as of October 1, 2004. This
scenario does not account for the pollution management measures that the City
currently employs.
b. TMDL - This is a “no controls” condition which reflects the stormwater pollution
generated from the City of Oshkosh under the current land use as of November
2013. This scenario does not account for the pollution management measures that
the City currently employs.
2. Existing Managed Condition: The existing managed condition reflects the stormwater
pollution generated by the City using the land use established in the no controls condition
and accounts for the reduction in that pollution due to the stormwater pollution management
activities currently employed by the City.
3. Proposed Managed Condition: The proposed managed condition reflects the future
stormwater pollution condition accounting for the stormwater pollution management
practices and the recommended additional practices.
.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX November 2014
2-1
2.0 Project Setting
2.1 Overview
The City of Oshkosh is located on the western shore of Lake Winnebago in eastern Wisconsin.
The City’s 2010 population is reported at 66,083. All communities with a population greater than
10,000 people or in urbanized areas with a population density of at least 1,000 person per square
mile are subject to stormwater management regulations as administered by the WDNR.
Wisconsin’s stormwater regulations are described in the Administrative Code sections NR 216
and NR 151. Under this regulatory program, the City was issued a stormwater discharge permit
from the WDNR. The City received their permit coverage in January 2007. The permit defines the
actions required of the City to remain in compliance. Additionally, with the future establishment of
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Upper Fox River watershed, the current stormwater
quality requirements will change. TMDLs are established for impaired waters to identify pollutant
loads and reductions necessary to remove the conditions causing the impairment to make them
“fishable and swimmable” as defined by the Clean Water Act. Details on these regulations are
discussed in Section 3 of this report.
2.2 Water Resources
The City of Oshkosh is located within the Upper Fox River Management Unit, based on the
WDNR’s classification system. The most significant surface water resources of the project area
include: Fox River (between Lake Butte des Morts and Lake Winnebago), Lake Butte des Morts,
Lake Winnebago, Sawyer Creek, and Campbell Creek. There are also a number of minor
waterways within the project area. The rivers and creeks and all surface runoff from the city
ultimately flow into Lake Winnebago. The major water resources are described below. Figure 2-1
displays the project area and impaired waterbodies.
2.2.1 Sawyer Creek
Sawyer Creek’s headwaters originate approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the City of Oshkosh
and flows through the city to the Fox River. West of the city the watershed is mostly flat to
undulating, agricultural lands. The lower 3.4 miles flows through the City of Oshkosh and is highly
channelized. The watershed is ranked “high” by the WDNR for nonpoint source impacts. This
ranking is based on the intensity of agricultural land uses in the upper portion of the watershed,
and the urban land uses (City of Oshkosh) in the lower reaches.
Sawyer Creek is identified as a warm water sport fishery water body; however this stream has not
been assessed to determine if it is meeting that classification. Based on the 2013 GIS file provided
by the City, the city has identified 43 municipal storm sewer outfalls leading directly to Sawyer
Creek. Within the city of Oshkosh, Sawyer Creek is subject to frequent flooding and the city is
conducting studies to better manage flooding along this stream.
2.2.2 Campbell Creek
Campbell Creek is located almost entirely within the city limits of Oshkosh, and is tributary to the
Fox River. The headwaters of the creek are southwest of the city (west of USH 41); however the
creek’s watershed is almost totally urban land use. Within the city, the creek is almost entirely
channelized and/or contained within a storm sewer system, which discharges on the north side of
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
2-2
Witzel Ave. The watershed is ranked “high” by the WDNR for nonpoint source impacts (from urban
stormwater).
2.2.3 Fox River
Within the project area, the Fox River is the connection between Lake Butte Des Morts and Lake
Winnebago. River levels are controlled by the Lake Winnebago level, which in turn is controlled by
the dam system at the lake’s outlet in Neenah / Menasha. The river is listed as a “warm water
sport fishery” and it provides an important passage for sturgeon from Lake Winnebago to the
upper reaches of the Fox River/Wolf River system for spawning. The river also provides an
important recreational boating access between Lake Winnebago and the upper Fox River/Wolf
River lakes.
A portion of the river from approximately Highway 45 downstream to the confluence with Lake
Winnebago is listed on the State of Wisconsin Impaired Waters List. The EPA identifies impaired
waters as, “waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standard,”
(EPA, 2013 reference: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/index.cfm). As required
by the Clean Water Act, water quality standards are set by the WDNR to protect waters from pollution.
To identify impaired waters, the DNR monitors waterways and compares the results to the water
quality standards. A water is considered impaired if it “does not support full use by humans, wildlife,
fish and other aquatic life and it is shown that one or more of the pollutant criteria are not met”
(WDNR, 2013 reference: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/impairments.html).
The identified impairments are for aquatic toxicity. The identified pollutant sources are
contaminated sediments, and an historic coal tar site. The Fox River receives stormwater runoff
from the City of Oshkosh via 59 identified outfalls, based on the 2013 GIS outfall shapefile.
2.2.4 Lake Butte des Morts
Lake Butte des Morts is a shallow lake upstream from Lake Winnebago on the Upper Fox River.
The lake encompasses about 13.8 square miles and has a maximum depth of 9 feet. Stormwater
from the City of Oshkosh discharges to the most southeastern portion of the lake, near the lake’s
outlet to the Fox River. The lake is classified as supporting a warm water and forage fishery
(northern pike, largemouth bass, sturgeon, and pan fish).
The lake is listed on the State of Wisconsin Impaired Waters List. The identified impairments are
for low dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, and a fish consumption advisory. The identified
pollutants are mercury, PCBs, phosphorus, and sediment. The lake also has non-native aquatic
species such as: zebra mussels and Eurasian milfoil. Based on the 2013 GIS file provided by the
City, there are 10 identified municipal storm sewer outfalls from the City of Oshkosh to the lake.
2.2.5 Lake Winnebago
Lake Winnebago ultimately receives all the surface runoff from the City of Oshkosh and makes up
the eastern boundary of the City. The lake covers over 200 square miles (the largest lake in
Wisconsin) and has a maximum depth of only 21 feet. The major inlet to the lake is the Fox River
at Oshkosh, and the outlet is the Fox River at Neenah and Menasha. The lake is highly eutrophic
and supports large populations of rough fish. Sport fish populations include walleye, northern pike,
musky, large-mouth bass, and small mouth bass. The lake also supports a world class population
of sturgeon.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
2-3
The lake is listed on the State of Wisconsin Impaired Waters List. The identified impairments are for
low dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, and a fish consumption advisory. The identified pollutants are
mercury, PCBs, phosphorus, and sediment. There are 146 municipal storm sewer outfalls leading
directly to Lake Winnebago, based on the 2013 GIS shapefile.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
3-1
3.0 Water Quality Regulations and TMDLs
There are two main regulatory components for urban stormwater pollution for municipalities in
Wisconsin; WPDES permits, and TMDLs. The WPDES permit includes requirements for “six
minimum control measures” to improve stormwater discharge quality.
In addition to the requirements of the WPDES permit, TMDLs are being developed for impaired
waterbodies throughout the State of Wisconsin. A TMDL places a limit on the amount of pollution that
can be discharged into an impaired waterbody. The WDNR is responsible for the development and
implementation of TMDLs within the State of Wisconsin as delegated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. When pollution reduction targets are developed through the TMDL process, they are
automatically incorporated into the WPDES permit.
3.1 WPDES Permit Requirements
The City of Oshkosh is regulated by the WDNR for the control of stormwater pollution. The City has
been issued an “NR 216 permit” or “WPDES Permit” as a Phase II Community. The NR 216 permit
went into effect in January 2007.
In Wisconsin, Administrative Code section NR 216 governs the urban stormwater regulations. The
stormwater regulatory program is commonly referred to as the “NR 216 program.” The NR 216
program is administered by the WDNR. Administrative Code section NR 216 was finalized in July
2004. A companion Administrative Code section NR 151 contains runoff management
performance standards that are referenced by the City’s permit. These stormwater regulations
apply to all areas identified by the USEPA as urban areas (based on the 2000 census) and to
cities or villages with a population of 10,000 or a density of 1,000 person per square mile or
greater.
Six minimum standards are required of the City relative to stormwater management. To comply
with the minimum standards, the City developed and implemented the following programs:
1. Public education and outreach program
2. Public involvement and participation program
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination (program and ordinance)
4. Construction site pollution control (ordinance)
5. Post-construction site stormwater management (ordinance)
6. Pollution prevention (reduce stormwater pollution from municipal operations and the
citywide storm sewer system)
The City’s original permit had no TP removal requirement and required a 20% TSS reduction by
2008 and 40% by 2013. However, in 2011 the state legislature delayed the 40% TSS reduction
requirement. As noted previously, when pollution reduction targets are developed through the
TMDL process, they are incorporated into the WPDES permit. Most of this report will focus on the
WPDES permit requirements; however, a portion of this report will focus on the anticipated
implementation of TMDLs. Details on the methods and results of this analysis are described in
Chapter 4.0.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
3-2
3.2 TMDL Requirements
3.2.1 TMDL Background
A TMDL is defined by the WDNR, as “an analysis used to calculate a pollutant budget: sources of
pollutants are identified and then reductions are given to various sources in order to meet water
quality standards,” (source: WDNR Wisconsin Total Maximum Daily Loads). An alternative way of
stating this is, “A TMDL is the amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet water
quality standard,” (source: WNDR, 2012 reference: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/index.html). The
Clean Water Act requires that the WDNR develop TMDLs for impaired waters. The first TMDL in
Wisconsin was developed in 2000, and as of the date of this study, 30 TMDLs have been developed
and approved in Wisconsin (source: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/tmdlreports.html). The development
process is ongoing in several waterbodies including the Upper Fox/Wolf River watershed.
A TMDL fact sheet which was prepared by the WDNR with additional background and information on
TMDLs is included in Appendix A and is briefly summarized in the following report sections.
3.2.1.1 TMDL Development Process
The development of a TMDL begins with a data collection period, during which, the waterbody is
monitored to identify the current pollution loadings and water flow, along with other pertinent data.
Using the monitoring data, a computer model is used to simulate the processes in the waterbody and
determine the existing pollution loads and to calculate the load reductions needed to meet the water
quality standards for the waterbody.
From this point the TMDL can be broken into allocations of pollutants that are assigned to pollutant
generators. This process is often expressed as a formula:
TMDL = Wasteload Allocation (WLA) + Load Allocation (LA) + Margin of Safety (MOS)
The WLA is the total allowable pollutant load from point sources, such as waste-water treatment
plants, industrial facilities, confined animals feeding operations, and MS4s. The LA is the total
allowable pollutant load from non-point sources, such as agricultural runoff and non-regulated urban
areas. A margin of safety is also included in the TMDL. Within the total WLA, individual contributors
(such as the City of Oshkosh MS4) are assigned a specific allocation.
As part of a TMDL a waterbody may also be broken into segments, or reaches. Each reach is
assigned its own wasteload and load allocations for tributary areas.
3.2.1.2 TMDL Implementation
The implementation process begins following the development of a TMDL. There is some uncertainty
surrounding the implementation of TMDLs. Because Lake Winnebago contains such a large ultimate
watershed, a number of stakeholders will be subject to this TMDL. These stakeholders include
agricultural landowners, public point sources (MS4s and waste-water treatment plants), private point
sources (such as a manufacturing facility), and Department of Transportation lands (highways). The
implementation process and requirements for each stakeholder are still evolving.
The WDNR is currently developing guidance documents for the implementation of TMDLs within
MS4s. The document will provide general guidance for MS4s regarding steps to be taken for
planning, implementing, and stormwater pollution modeling related to TMDLs. Based on a review of
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
3-3
the guidance document (included in Appendix A), the implementation of TMDLs will include the
following requirements:
The pollution reduction requirements included in the TMDL will be incorporated into the
City’s WPDES permit.
The first WPDES permit issued following the approval of a TMDL will include a requirement
to prepare a stormwater management plan for how the TMDL will be met. This report will
form the starting point for such an analysis and will be modified as needed in the future.
The stormwater management plan will include a schedule for meeting TMDL requirements
and a schedule of interim benchmarks.
The schedule for meeting TMDL requirements will be flexible and it is anticipated that at
least 15-years will be allowed for compliance with a TMDL. During this time continual
progress towards meeting the TMDL is expected. The City will need to track this progress
and provide periodic submittals to the WDNR, most likely through the current annual
reporting process.
The ultimate goal of implementing a TMDL is to improve water quality so that the waterbody meets the
applicable water quality standards. This is determined by on-going monitoring and assessment of the
waterbody. If a TMDL is implemented and water quality standards are not met, additional evaluation
will be needed and further pollutant reductions may be required.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-14.docx December 2014
4-1
4.0 Stormwater Pollution Analysis
For the purpose of this report, stormwater pollution is defined as contaminates found in urban
surface runoff, including: sediment, nutrients, organic compounds, pathogens, and heavy metals.
Stormwater pollution can have significant negative impacts on receiving waters, often exceeding
the impact of traditional point-source discharges (factories, wastewater treatment plants, etc.)
typically associated with surface water pollution. Therefore, an assessment of stormwater pollution
is an important part of watershed planning. Under the current permit requirements, “stormwater
pollution” reductions are measured by sediment or total suspended solids (TSS) control. In the
future, TMDLs will expand this definition and measurement.
This report documents the water quality analysis conducted for the City of Oshkosh following the
standard MS4 water quality analysis guidelines and TMDL analysis guidelines.
4.1 Input
4.1.1 Hydrologic Basins
For the update analysis, the City sent AECOM the most recent file of the hydrologic basins.
AECOM compiled the watershed data from the detailed study areas performed throughout the City
with the most recent file of the hydrologic basins. This file was then modified to make sure that the
watersheds did not overlap one another or have gaps. The project area was divided into 1,504
hydrologic units, or basins, and 106 watersheds for the water quality analysis. Typically, in
watersheds where a detailed study was performed by AECOM, basins were delineated to each
manhole and the watersheds were delineated to each storm sewer outfall. With the exception of
defining the drainage area for relatively small BMPs, the data was not revised.
The watershed name is from the previous citywide GIS file. In general, the watershed name is the
name of the street where the storm sewer outfall is located. This naming convention is from the
previous citywide GIS file.
Figure 4-1 displays the hydrologic units used as part of this study. Hydrologic basins may extend
beyond the municipal boundary but for the purposes of this report, only the area within the city
limits are reported on.
4.1.2 Land Use
4.1.2.1 General Background
The type and distribution of land use has a major impact on the hydrology and urban stormwater
pollution within a watershed. The volume and rate of stormwater runoff increases as the
percentage of impervious surfaces (streets, parking lots, roofs, etc.) in an area increases. The
amount of impervious surface, in turn, is related to land use. As development occurs, the
impervious area generally increases, often significantly. Land use also plays an important role in
determining the types and amounts of pollutants that are carried by runoff.
Highly urbanized commercial and industrial areas usually contain a large percentage of impervious
area and generate high amounts of a variety of pollutants. These pollutants include sediment,
nutrients, bacteria, metals, and toxic substances. Less intensive development, such as low to
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-2
medium density residential development, contains a moderate amount of impervious area and
generates lower levels of most pollutants.
4.1.2.2 MS4 Land Use
A map of existing (October 1, 2004) land use was developed based on information from several
sources. The land use coverage created for the 2008 Plan was used as a starting point. This land use
data was then revised based on aerial photos and the City staff’s knowledge of the area. The land use
categories were then organized into groups suitable for the stormwater pollution analysis.
Figure 4-2 shows existing land use conditions used for the pollution analysis. Table 4-1 summarizes
the existing land use within the entire municipal boundary as of October 2004.
Table 4-1
Existing Land Use Summary
(Land Use as of October 1, 2004)
Analyzed Area Area (ac) Area (%)
Commercial
Airport 897 5.1
Downtown 266 1.5
Shopping Center 278 1.6
Strip Commercial 904 5.2
Office Park 54 0.3
Industrial
Light 1,322 7.5
Medium 445 2.5
Institutional
Hospital 87 0.5
Miscellaneous Institutional 981 5.6
School 274 1.6
University of Wisconsin-
Oshkosh 192 1.1
Open Space
Cemetery 206 1.2
Park 1,095 6.3
Railroad 122 0.7
Open Space Undeveloped 110 0.6
Residential
High Density no Alleys 1,278 7.3
High Density with Alleys 11 0.1
Medium Density no Alleys 3,210 18.3
Medium Density with Alleys 19 0.1
Low Density 641 3.7
Mobile Home 46 0.3
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-3
Table 4-1 (continued)
Existing Land Use Summary
(Land Use as of October 1, 2004)
Residential (continued)
Multi-Family no Alleys 771 4.4
Multi-Family with Alleys 2 0.0
Analyzed Area Sub-Total 13,213 75.0
Areas Not Included
Agriculture 1,991 11.4
County Right of Way 70 0.4
Quarry – Industrial Permitted 111 0.6
Open Space > 5 acres 1,132 6.5
WisDOT Right of Way 468 2.7
Water 535 3.1
Areas Not Included Sub-Total 4,307 25.0
Total Municipal Area 17,520 100
4.1.2.3 TMDL Land Use
A map of existing (2013) land use was developed based on information from several sources. The
land use coverage created for the WPDES Permit requirements was used as a starting point. Land
use coded as agriculture and open space undeveloped greater than 5 acres based on the year 2004
was checked to determine whether this is still accurate. The land use was revised to current conditions
if development has occurred on these parcels
Figure 4-3 shows existing land use conditions (as of December 2013) used for the baseline pollution
analysis for the future TMDL. Table 4-2 summarizes the existing land use within the entire municipal
boundary based on 2013 information.
Table 4-2
Existing Land Use Summary
(Land Use as of 2013)
Analyzed Area Area (ac) Area (%)
Commercial
Airport 897 5.1
Downtown 266 1.5
Shopping Center 282 1.6
Strip Commercial 909 5.2
Office Park 146 0.8
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-4
Table 4-2 (continued)
Existing Land Use Summary
(Land Use as of 2013)
Industrial
Light 1,414 8.1
Medium 445 2.5
Institutional
Hospital 87 0.5
Miscellaneous Institutional 981 5.6
School 274 1.6
University of Wisconsin-
Oshkosh 192 1.1
Open Space
Cemetery 206 1
Park 1,095 6
Railroad 122 1
Open Space Undeveloped 1,238 7
Residential
High Density no Alleys 1,278 7.3
High Density with Alleys 11 0.1
Medium Density no Alleys 3,210 18.3
Medium Density with Alleys 19 0.1
Low Density 664 3.8
Mobile Home 46 0.3
Multi-Family no Alleys 864 4.9
Multi-Family with Alleys 2 0.0
Analyzed Area Sub-Total 14,648 84.0
Areas Not Included
Agriculture 1,688 9.6
County Right of Way 70 0.4
Quarry – Industrial Permitted 111 0.6
Open Space > 5 acres - -
WisDOT Right of Way 468 2.7
Water 535 3.1
Areas Not Included Sub-Total 2,872 16.0
Total Municipal Area 17,520 100
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-5
4.1.3 Precipitation
Precipitation data is one of the parameters used in the stormwater pollution model: Windows Source
Load and Management Model (WinSLAMM). When modeling stormwater pollution loadings,
cumulative runoff and pollution loads from the more frequent and smaller rain events are more
important than the pollution from the less frequent larger rain events. This is because the more
frequent events generate the majority of the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutant loads in any
given year; therefore, modeling simulations are performed with rainfall records for a representative time
period.
Current guidance from the WDNR stipulates that rainfall records for a five-year period should be used.
Rainfall input files have been developed for several locations throughout the State of Wisconsin, and
the WDNR specifies that the file developed for a location closest to the project area be used in the
analysis. Thus, the Green Bay five-year rainfall file for rain events between 1968 and 1972 was used
for the stormwater pollution modeling in Oshkosh.
4.1.4 Soils
Soil properties influence the volume and rate of runoff generated from rainfall events. Soils that
allow rainfall to freely drain into the ground (sandy soils) will result in lower runoff rates and
volumes. Soils that restrict the infiltration of rainfall into the ground (clayey soils) will cause higher
runoff rates and volumes. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) classifies soils based on their runoff potential into Hydrologic Groups
A, B, C, or D. Soils in Hydrologic Group A have a high infiltration capacity and low runoff potential
(generally sandy or gravelly soils). Conversely, Group D soils have a low infiltration capacity and a
high runoff potential (generally soils with high clay content).
According to the NRCS Soil Survey, the project area consists of mostly Group C soils. There is a
mixture of the other soils found in the remaining areas of the City. NRCS Soil Survey information
shows that these soils exhibit a wide range of properties and infiltration ability. The NRCS Soil
Surveys were developed to summarize soil characteristics. Actual soil conditions for a specific
location can vary from the general (mapped) condition. WinSLAMM requires inputs characterizing
the soil type of the study area. Allowable inputs in the WinSLAMM model are; “Sandy,” “Silty,” or
“Clayey.” For this analysis, soils in Hydrologic Group A were assumed to be “Sandy,” soils in
Hydrologic Group B were assumed to be “Silty,” and soils in Hydrologic Group C or D were
assumed to be “Clayey.” Within the analyzed area of the City of Oshkosh approximately 98
percent of soils are classified as “Clayey”, 1.6 percent are classified as “Silty”, and 0.1 percent are
classified as “Sandy.”
Figure 4-4 displays the NRCS hydrologic group classification of soils located within the City of
Oshkosh.
4.2 MS4 Analysis
4.2.1 Project Area
The project area for purposes of the stormwater pollution analysis is based on the regulatory
requirements of NR 216 and the policy memorandum (memo) developed by the WDNR. (See
Appendix A for the WDNR policy memos.) The regulations and policy memos describe the areas
of the City that fall into three categories: 1) areas that must be included in the pollution analysis,
2) areas that are exempt from the pollution analysis, and 3) optional areas for the analysis. The
project area for the pollution analysis includes all lands within the municipal boundary (as of
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-6
November, 2013) that generate surface runoff to the City’s stormwater conveyance system
(sometimes called the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System – MS4) and are not excluded from
the analysis as allowed by WDNR policy memos.
NR 216 only regulates stormwater quality that is discharged from the City’s stormwater
conveyance system. The conveyance system includes the City-owned or City-managed
stormwater pipes, ditches, streets, gutters, stormwater basins, detention areas, or other
constructed systems for conveying stormwater runoff to a lake, river, or wetland. Certain lands
within the City were excluded from the stormwater pollution analysis because these areas are not
regulated by NR 216 or are regulated under their own NR 216 permit. The areas excluded from
the stormwater pollution analysis for the City of Oshkosh include:
1. Undeveloped land greater than five acres as of October 1, 2004.
2. Lands within the City zoned agriculture and under agricultural conditions as of October 1, 2004.
3. Lands within the Wisconsin Department of Transportation right-of-way (as identified on the
WDOT State Trunk Highway Map for Winnebago County as either: a) Designated Freeway,
or b) State Trunk Highway (Maintained & Traveled)).
4. Lands within the Winnebago County Right-of-Way as provided by the County as their MS4
area of responsibility.
5. Lands within the Quarry that is Industrial Permitted.
Included in the project area are a number of parcels currently located in the Town of Algoma. The
City has a boundary agreement with Algoma. These parcels are “islands” fully surrounded by the
City. They are located north of Waukau Avenue. In addition, several County-owned properties are
included based on discussion and draft agreements with the County. Specifically: Winnebago
County Fairgrounds, Winnebago County Community Park, Winnebago County Landfill, Winnebago
Count Sheriff’s Department / Solid Waste Transfer Station / County Highway Department parcel
and Wittman Regional Airport. Areas covered by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh Campus
are also included in the project area based on discussion and draft agreements with the University.
Figure 4-5 shows the areas removed from the stormwater pollution analysis based on the MS4
requirements.
4.2.2 Methodology
To analyze stormwater pollution loads for the City of Oshkosh’s urban areas, a computer
simulation model: WinSLAMM, Version 10.0, was used. WinSLAMM was originally developed by
the WDNR and is now licensed by PV & Associates. (See www.winslamm.com for more
information). It is the most widely used model in Wisconsin to assess urban stormwater pollution
loads.
The project area, as described in Section 4.2.1, was determined based on WDNR guidelines to
meet the compliance requirements of Administrative Code NR 216.07(6). In keeping with the
WDNR guidelines for conducting the analysis and defining the Base or “no BMP” condition, the
following steps were completed.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-7
A geographical information system (GIS) database was created containing information pertaining
to stormwater pollution in the City of Oshkosh. Information in the database includes:
Hydrologic basins, or subbasins
Soil type
Land use as of October 2004
Land use as of October 2010
Drainage type (curb & gutter or swale)
Entities within the municipal boundary (regulated industrial properties, Winnebago County,
Town of Algoma, University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh, Wittman Regional Airport, and County
or Wisconsin Department of Transportation right-of-ways)
Existing grass swales
Existing street cleaning schedule
Existing structural BMPs (wet detention basins, stormwater lift stations with sumps,
biofiltration devices and catch basins)
WinSLAMM requires input files that describe characteristics of the project area. Land uses within the
city were assigned one of several WinSLAMM “standard land uses,” each of which has a set
proportion of roof, driveway, road, and open space areas. This approach eliminates the need to
delineate all the different types of pervious and impervious areas for each individual parcel in the city
limits. The model utilizes several different land characteristics, management practices, and pollutant
and rainfall data base files to complete the simulation. The pollutant files are based on United Stated
Geological Service (USGS) and WDNR runoff monitoring that, with the site specific land
characteristics and other files, results in statistical pollutant loadings under various conditions as
described later in this report.
The following support parameter files were used in WinSLAMM version 10.0 for this analysis:
WisReg – Green Bay Five Year Rainfall.ran – Approved five-year average rainfall
distribution for the Green Bay area
WI_GEO02.ppdx – Pollutant probability distribution file
v10 WI_SL06 Dec06.rsv – Runoff coefficient file
WI_AVG06.pscx – Particulate solids concentration file
WI_Res and Other Urban Dec06.std – Street delivery file for residential and other urban
land uses
WI_Com Inst Indust Dec06.std – Street delivery file for commercial, institutional and
industrial land uses
Freeway Dec06.std – Street delivery file for freeway land uses
WinSLAMM was run, and pollution loads were calculated for each land use and subbasin. The
pollutants analyzed for this project were TSS and total phosphorus (TP).
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-8
4.2.3 Results: Base Conditions
The MS4 base conditions analysis (October 1, 2004, land use conditions with no BMPs) was run in
WinSLAMM to provide a baseline with which to compare the existing conditions analysis. The
results of this analysis are shown in Table 4-3. The City’s base TSS load is 1,912 tons per year.
The City of Oshkosh’s base TP load is 10,923 pounds per year.
Figure 4-6a shows a graphical representation of the City’s base TSS load relative to its land use.
Figure 4-6b shows a graphical representation of the City’s base TP load relative to its land use. It is
significant to note that although the commercial and industrial areas together make up about 31
percent of the analyzed area, they account for about 44 percent of the TSS pollution generated in
the City. It is commonly found that the more highly urbanized land uses (commercial and industrial)
produce a higher quantity of stormwater pollutants on a per acre basis compared with other urban
land uses, such as residential. Appendix B contains a list of the base pollution loads for each
watershed. Figure 4-7a displays the total amount of TSS generated within each watershed on a per
acre basis. Figure 4-7b displays the total amount of TP generated within each watershed on a per
acre basis.
Table 4-3
Base Conditions Pollutant Load by Land Use
Land Use Area TSS TP
(acres) (%) (tons/yr) (%) (lbs/yr) (%)
Commercial
Airport 897 6.8 46 2.4 385 3.5
Downtown 266 2.0 52 2.7 265 2.4
Shopping Center 278 2.1 54 2.8 229 2.1
Strip Commercial 900 6.8 228 11.9 969 8.9
Office Park 54 0.4 10 0.5 47 0.4
Sub-Total 2,395 18 390 20 1,896 17
Industrial
Light 1,346 10.2 349 18.3 1,243 11.4
Medium 436 3.3 102 5.3 342 3.1
Sub-Total 1,783 13 451 24 1,585 15
Institutional
Hospital 87 0.7 16 0.9 87 0.8
Miscellaneous Institutional 981 7.4 191 10.0 915 8.4
School 277 2.1 47 2.5 277 2.5
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh 183 1.4 31 1.6 183 1.7
Sub-Total 1,527 12 286 15 1,463 13
Open Space
Cemetery 206 1.6 14 0.7 131 1.2
Park 1,095 8.3 68 3.6 616 5.6
Railroad 122 0.9 3 0.1 36 0.3
Open Space Undeveloped 110 0.8 3 0.1 32 0.3
Sub-Total 1,534 12 87 5 814 7
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-9
Table 4-3
Base Conditions Pollutant Load by Land Use
Residential
High Density no Alleys 1,278 9.7 181 9.5 1,296 11.9
High Density with Alleys 11 0.1 2 0.1 12 0.1
Medium Density no Alleys 3,210 24.3 350 18.3 2,670 24.4
Medium Density with Alleys 19 0.1 3 0.1 19 0.2
Low Density 641 4.9 51 2.7 435 4.0
Mobile Home 46 0.3 5 0.3 35 0.3
Multi-Family no Alleys 767 5.8 105 5.5 696 6.4
Multi-Family with Alleys 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0
Sub-Total 5,975 45 697 36 5,165 47
Total 13,213 100 1,912 100 10,923 100
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-10
Figure 4-8
MS4 Land Use and TSS Load Distributions
Commercial
18%
Industrial
13%
Institutional
12%
Open Space
12%
Residential
45%
Analyzed Area Land Use Distribution
Commercial
17%
Industrial
15%
Institutional
13%
Open Space
8%
Residential
47%
Base TP Load by Land Use
Commercial
20%
Industrial
24%
Institutional
15%
Open Space
5%
Residential
36%
Base TSS Load by Land Use
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-11
4.3 MS4 Existing Management Conditions
Once the base load was established, the City’s existing BMPs were evaluated. The City’s existing
practices include street cleaning, grass swale drainage, stormwater pump station maintenance,
and structural BMPs (including water quality wet detention basins, biofiltration devices, and catch
basins).
4.3.1 Street Cleaning
At the time of the 2008 Plan, street sweeping was conducted on the majority of the streets every
other week, and in the downtown area, once per week, spring through fall. Since the completion of
the 2008 study, the City has implemented an enhanced street cleaning program. The enhanced
program is an intensive weekly cleaning frequency for the first six weeks after spring snow melt.
Then during the remaining cleaning season, the City performs street cleaning of the majority of City
Streets every other week spring through fall. The downtown streets are cleaned at a weekly
frequency. The areas that drain to streets without curbs were removed from the street cleaning
analysis. The 2012 and 2013 street reconstruction plans were incorporated into the existing curb
data. The existing conditions accounts for streets constructed as of the 2013 construction season.
Parking density refers to the number of vehicles parked per curb mile and the parking controls
factor refers to the ability of the street cleaning machinery to reach the curb (and not drive around
vehicles during the cleaning operation). The City uses vacuum assisted, high efficiency, street
cleaners and mechanical broom sweepers, as needed.
Parking densities and parking controls were defined as follows:
Central Business District and UW-Oshkosh Campus – “Extensive Short Term” with parking
controls,
Cemetery, Golf Courses; Suburban Residential Office Parks, Shopping Center – “None” with
parking controls, and
Residential (high, medium and low density); Parks; Industrial (light and medium); Strip
Commercial – “Light” with parking controls
In existing conditions, street cleaning accounts for a 7.8 percent reduction in TSS and a 5.1 percent
reduction in TP. Figure 4-9 illustrates where street cleaning credit was taken and where street cleaning
is conducted, but credit is not taken. Credit was taken for approximately 5,838 acres of the analyzed
area that the City sweeps.
4.3.2 Catch Basins with Sumps
During road reconstruction projects, the city installs catch basins with sumps as part of the storm
sewer drainage system to help reduce stormwater pollution. The 2012 and 2013 street
reconstruction plans were incorporated into the existing catch basin data. The existing conditions
accounts for catch basins constructed as of the 2013 construction season. WinSLAMM was used
to analyze the pollution reduction achieved by catch basins. Inputs into the WinSLAMM model for
catch basins include:
Density = 1.6 catch basins per acre
Surface area = 6.0 square feet
Outlet pipe diameter = 12 inches
Sump depth = 18 inches
Annual cleaning
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-12
The catch basin density was calculated by counting the number of catch basins within Oshkosh
and dividing by the drainage areas treated by the catch basins. Other inputs are based on the
average, or typical, parameters for a catch basin within the City. The catch basin area includes
areas treated by only catch basins or catch basins and street cleaning. Approximately 1,051 acres
within the analyzed area are treated by catch basins. A 2.4 percent citywide TSS reduction and
1.9 percent city TP reduction is achieved by the catch basins.
4.3.3 Grass Swales
4.3.3.1 Grass Swale Infiltration Rate Testing
A limited number of properties and roadways in the City have grass swale drainage systems. These
systems are included as existing BMPs. The City provided information for the location and
characterization of the swales.
The pollution reduction criteria for the swales is based on a site inspection of the representative
geometries, tested infiltration rates based on soil mapping data, and WDNR guidelines. The default
infiltration rates are generally conservative. Therefore, infiltration testing was performed on the grass
swales within the City to determine a more accurate infiltration rate.
Summary of Methods
Prior to conducting the field infiltration testing, initial work was done to select suitable sites for testing
that would best represent the various conditions of the City’s grass swale system. These initial steps
included:
1. Using GIS to review land use and hydrologic soil group data to determine a proposed
number of test sites. Ten proposed infiltration testing sites were chosen. The criteria for
choosing the sites were based on a proportional representation of the different land use and
hydrologic soil groups present in the City.
2. Creating maps identifying the approximate locations of the proposed sites relative to both
land use coverage and soil mapping. The maps were submitted to WDNR for review along
with an email describing the proposed test sites and the infiltration testing procedures.
3. Upon approval from WDNR, the test sites were finalized.
The field infiltration testing occurred on October 3 and October 4, 2012.
The field testing was conducted following the guidance provided by the WDNR at the time of
testing, specifically:
WDNR memo dated 4/24/08: “Process to Assess and Model Grass Swales for
ss.NR151.13(2) and NR 216.07(6), Wis. Adm. Code – Total Suspended Solids Reduction;”
and
WDNR memo dated 8/02/08: “Errata for Process to Assess and Model Existing Grass
Swales (TSS Reduction) Modifications to Double-Ring Infiltrometer Test Procedures in
Technical Standard 1002.”
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-13
Photographs of the field infiltration testing are provided in Appendix C. Maps showing infiltration
testing locations compared to both soil coverage and land use in the City are also included on
Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix C.
Results of Testing
Upon completion of the field infiltration testing, all results were tabulated and graphed to compare
elapsed time with infiltration rate, measured in inches per hour. The tables and graphs detailing
the raw field data for each test site are found in Appendix C.
In order to arrive at a single value for the infiltration rate at a site, a “best fit line” was created from
the data from each test site. The infiltration rate at hour two (2) of testing was compiled for each
site. A geometric mean value of 2.86 in/hr (dynamic rate) was calculated from the data. This value
was approved by the WDNR on April 4, 2013. The email correspondence from the WDNR
approving the rate, and all other relevant documentation regarding the swale infiltration rate testing,
can be found in Appendix C.
For modeling purposes in WinSLAMM, the dynamic infiltration rate is used in accordance with
WDNR guidelines. The dynamic rate is calculated by dividing the static rate in half. Table 4-4
shows the infiltration rates for each test location in the City and the calculated geometric mean.
Table 4-4
Infiltration Rate Results per Test Site and Average Rate
Location Test
#
Static Infiltration
Rate* (in/hr)
Dynamic Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
City Average**
Dynamic Rate
(in/hr)
Edgewood Lane 1*** 34.30 17.15
2.86
STH 41 (north of STH 45) 2 0.76 0.38
Olson Ave 3 4.53 2.27
Sherman Rd 4 3.95 1.98
Hwy 41 and Witzel Ave 5 0.24 0.12
9th Ave 6 34.30 17.15
S. Washburn St 7 1.05 0.53
Poberezny Rd 8 12.50 6.25
W. 28th Ave 9*** 34.30 17.15
STH 45 10 21.60 10.80
*Value from best fit curve at 2 hours
**Geometric Mean
*** Infiltration rates at test locations #1 and #9 were too high to measure with available equipment. The
infiltration rate at these locations was set to that of test location #6, which had a high, but measurable,
infiltration rate.
4.3.3.2 Grass Swale WinSLAMM Modeling
Following the completion of the grass swale testing, the grass swale data for the City of Oshkosh
was compiled for modeling. Only grass swales that were in good condition and that would remain
rural cross sections were included in the analysis.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-14
Inputs used to analyze the swales include:
Infiltration rate based on values from infiltration testing taken in October 2012.
Swale Classification: The swales were classified into ten different types depending on their
cross section geometry, longitudinal slope, and region.
Side slopes, bottom widths, and grass height were determined based on field observations.
Longitudinal slopes and swale densities were measured using GIS.
If the swales had a longitudinal slope greater than 4 percent, they were removed from the
swale analysis. Grass swales with slopes greater than 4 percent are no longer efficient
because of the increased velocity of the stormwater runoff.
Table 4-5 displays the swale type and geometric features associated with it. Figure 4-10 illustrates the
swales that were included in the analysis and the sites chosen for infiltration testing. Figure 4-11
displays the grass swale drainage area by the swale type.
The modeled swale area includes any street cleaning and catch basins upstream of the swales.
City swales treat approximately 520 acres of the analyzed area. They reduce Citywide TSS loads
by 75 tons, or 3.9 percent, and the TP load by 391 lbs, or 3.6 percent.
4.3.4 Structural Best Management Practices
A number of structural best management practices (BMPs) exist within the City of Oshkosh. These
include wet detention basins, biofilters, and stormwater lift stations. Sixty-one structural BMPs
were included in the existing conditions model. These were included because they treat
stormwater pollution from lands within the MS4 regulated area.
Several BMPs were not included in the WinSLAMM analysis because: 1) they treat areas of new
development (post October, 2004) and are not included in the regulated area as described in a
WDNR policy memo dated November 24, 2010, 2) they are dry basins that do not achieve any
Table 4-5
Grass Swale Characteristics
Grass
Swale
Type
Total
Length
(ft)
Typical
Bottom
Width (ft)
Typical Side Slope
(_ ft H:1 ft V)
Typical
Longitudinal
Slope (ft/ft)
Dynamic
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
1 14,280 3 4.5 0.011 17.15
2 45,070 6 6.5 0.005 0.38
3 33,070 4 5 0.006 2.27
4 45,810 2 4 0.006 1.98
5 6,560 4 4 0.006 0.12
6 18,270 2 4 0.004 17.15
7 9,240 2 6 0.008 0.53
8 58,390 2 6 0.008 6.25
9 10,630 4 6 0.006 17.15
10 10,770 2 4 0.006 10.80
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-15
stormwater quality benefits, or 3) they are privately owned and a maintenance agreement would be
difficult to obtain.
Each existing structural BMP in the regulated area was analyzed using WinSLAMM version 10.0.
Table 4-6 shows the effectiveness of the existing structural BMPs.
For the stormwater basins that had a downstream BMP with a greater efficiency, the overall
watershed efficiency was applied to the entire basin. This is because the downstream BMP
includes the entire drainage area, including that of the upstream BMP, so the end level of treatment
can be applied to all tributary land areas.
The City has two stormwater lift stations. Each pump station contains a considerable sized sump.
The stormwater lift station sumps are modeled as catch basins with sumps in WinSLAMM version
10.0. The modeled stormwater lift stations include any street cleaning and catch basins upstream.
The structural BMPs treat approximately 2,725 acres of the analyzed area. They reduce Citywide
TSS loads by 266 tons, or 13.9 percent, and the TP load by 1,048 lbs, or 9.6 percent.
Figure 4-12 shows the location and drainage area of the City’s structural BMPs.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-16
Table 4-6
Structural BMP Pollution Reductions
BMP Name
Analyzed
Drainage
Area
Base TSS
Load
Existing
TSS Load
TSS
Control
TSS Load
Removed
by BMPs
Base TP
Load
Existing
TP Load
TP
Control
TP Load
Removed by
BMPs
(ac) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) % (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) % (lbs/yr)
Biofilters
400 E. Main Parking Lot 1.6 0.3 0.3 41 0.1 1.6 1.6 35 0.6
City Hall Bio 2.0 0.4 0.4 65 0.3 2.0 2.0 53 1.1
Morton Pharmacy 4.2 1.1 1.1 40 0.4 3.9 4.5 32 1.5
Otter Ave 0.8 0.2 0.2 43 0.1 0.8 0.8 26 0.2
The Rivers Biofilter 1.8 0.5 0.2 38 0.1 1.6 1.6 32 0.5
UWO Biofilter #11 2.2 0.4 0.4 37 0.1 2.2 2.2 28 0.6
UWO Biofilter #18 0.9 0.2 0.2 46 0.1 0.9 0.9 40 0.4
UWO Biofilter #23 1.1 0.2 0.2 43 0.1 1.1 1.1 33 0.4
UWO Biofilter #25 0.6 0.1 0.1 48 0.0 0.6 0.6 40 0.2
UWO Biofilter #27 1.3 0.2 0.2 45 0.1 1.2 1.2 37 0.5
UWO Biofilter #29 0.6 0.1 0.1 43 0.0 0.6 0.6 36 0.2
UWO Biofilter #30 5.7 1.0 1.0 15 0.1 5.7 5.7 10 0.6
UWO Biofilter #34 0.6 0.1 0.1 46 0.0 0.6 0.6 38 0.2
UWO Biofilter #34S 0.5 0.1 0.1 49 0.0 0.5 0.5 39 0.2
Lift Station
Melvin Ave 110.8 13.9 13.9 30 4.2 98.8 98.8 21 20.7
E Nevada Ave1 94.7 11.0 11.0 26 2.9 80.2 80.2 17 13.6
Non-Regional Wet Detention Basins
1200 Koeller St3 6.3 1.1 0.6 43 0.5 4.8 3.1 35 1.7
2800 N. Main St
Redevelopment 11.8 3.0 3.0 68 2.0 10.7 10.7 47 5.0
Aurora Medical Center 35.8 6.8 6.8 82 5.6 36.0 36.0 68 24.5
Bergstrom Auto 9.1 1.7 1.7 75 1.3 7.5 7.5 63 4.7
Blue Rock Properties 5.5 1.4 1.4 84 1.2 5.1 5.1 65 3.3
Cobblestone Inn 3.6 0.9 0.9 88 0.8 3.9 3.9 75 2.9
Community Church Inc. 20.3 3.9 3.9 78 3.0 18.6 18.6 64 11.9
Deerfield Village 4.3 1.1 1.1 74 0.8 4.0 4.0 55 2.2
EAA 1 4.3 0.8 0.8 94 0.8 4.0 4.0 84 3.3
EAA 2 3.3 0.6 0.6 95 0.6 3.1 3.1 81 2.5
EAA 3 68.2 8.5 8.5 68 5.8 51.0 51.0 54 27.5
EAA 5 14.2 1.8 1.8 96 1.7 10.1 10.1 72 7.2
Evergreen Manor Inc. 3.0 0.4 0.4 80 0.3 2.7 2.7 60 1.6
Mercy Hospital South Basin 10.5 2.0 2.0 77 1.5 10.5 10.5 64 6.7
Mercy Hospital Tower Basin 7.7 1.4 1.4 83 1.2 7.7 7.7 69 5.3
Multi Bldg. LLC3 5.1 1.3 0.5 64 0.8 4.6 2.5 45 2.1
N. Shore Preserve Central
Basin 13.5 1.3 1.3 33 0.4 10.1 10.1 21 2.1
N. Shore Preserve East Basin 19.1 1.6 1.6 30 0.5 13.3 13.3 19 2.5
N. Shore Preserve West Basin
North 2.2 0.2 0.2 61 0.1 1.8 1.8 55 1.0
N. Shore Preserve West Basin
South 3.9 0.4 0.4 33 0.1 3.3 3.3 23 0.8
New Life Church Basin 1, 2, &
4 9.2 1.8 1.8 87 1.6 8.5 8.5 62 5.3
New Life Church Basin 3 10.9 2.1 2.1 92 1.9 10.1 10.1 75 7.6
NW Ind. Park 2.9 0.7 0.7 98 0.7 2.5 2.5 44 1.1
Oshkosh Truck 23.1 5.5 5.5 74 4.0 18.6 18.6 64 11.8
Planeview Gas Station 7.6 1.9 1.9 8 0.2 8.2 8.2 5 0.4
Quail Run Farms Basin A 10.8 0.9 0.9 81 0.7 7.5 7.5 57 4.3
Quail Run Farms Basin B 8.4 0.7 0.7 81 0.6 6.0 6.0 50 3.0
Sawyer Creek 91.7 11.5 11.5 93 10.7 77.9 77.9 69 53.7
Sioux Prop. Man. Inc. 2.3 0.6 0.6 100 0.6 2.5 2.5 100 2.5
Target Complex 19.3 3.9 3.9 71 2.8 16.8 16.8 60 10.1
Turn Key Auto 1.3 0.3 0.3 88 0.3 1.4 1.4 76 1.0
Village Green East 15.1 1.8 1.8 92 1.7 12.9 12.9 63 8.1
Village Green West 7.1 0.8 0.8 96 0.8 6.1 6.1 64 3.9
Washburn St 50.8 12.3 12.3 64 7.9 53.3 53.3 51 27.2
Winnebago Cty Mental Health
( contains Main Park Basin
and Coughlin Park Basin)
458.9 44.1 44.1 73 32.2 314.4 314.4 47 147.7
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-
14.DOCX December 2014
4-17
Table 4-6
Structural BMP Pollution Reductions
BMP Name
Analyzed
Drainage
Area
Base TSS
Load
Existing
TSS Load
TSS
Control
TSS Load
Removed
by BMPs
Base TP
Load
Existing
TP Load
TP
Control
TP Load
Removed by
BMPs
(ac) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) % (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) % (lbs/yr)
Winnebago Cty Sheriff's Dept
(contains Hwy Dept, Sheriff's
Dept, and State Prison)
74.6 13.6 13.6 78 10.6 67.8 67.8 47 31.9
Regional Wet Detention Basins
Armory Area2 386.9 86.6 86.6 95 82.3 350.7 350.7 79 277.1
City Hall Underground Storage 106.9 15.6 15.6 34 5.3 104.3 104.3 24 25.0
Fair Acres 93.0 16.3 16.3 71 11.6 89.1 89.1 56 49.9
Mercy Hospital North Basin 47.5 6.4 6.4 73 4.7 41.7 41.7 53 22.1
North High School Area 77.1 9.0 9.0 86 7.8 63.7 63.7 67 42.7
Oakwood Road 47.5 11.9 11.9 82 9.8 42.8 42.8 64 27.4
South Park 629.3 108.0 108.0 22 23.8 562.4 562.4 16 90.0
Westhaven Club House 72.6 7.4 7.4 95 7.0 56.2 56.2 68 38.2
1 Assumed a sump depth of 1.25 feet
2 Armory wet detention basin has an efficiency of 95% TSS and 79% TP. However, a flow split west of USH 41
diverts 40% of the stormwater runoff flows north away from the Armory wet detention basin. Including this
untreated stormwater in the WinSLAMM model produces an overall removal rate of 68% TSS and 51% TP.
3 Upstream of the Armory wet detention basin, which has a higher efficiency. For the stormwater basins that had a downstream BMP with a greater
efficiency, the end level of treatment was applied to all tributary land areas.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-18
4.3.5 Results: Existing Conditions
The MS4 results using October 1, 2004, land use and applying all existing stormwater BMPs show
citywide reductions of 29% TSS and 22% TP. The locations of all the existing BMPs are shown
graphically on Figure 4-13. Table 4-7 includes a summary of the existing management conditions.
The existing management practices result in a TSS load reduction of 561 tons annually and a TP load
reduction of 2,408 pounds annually.
Note: Results below are displayed by most-downstream BMP. Because WinSLAMM version 10.0
allows BMPs to be run in series, it is less useful to break out reductions by specific BMP categories,
but rather by the final downstream BMP for any given drainage area. For example, the results for
regional wet detention basins show the reductions for all areas that drain to a regional wet detention
basin as the last point of treatment. These areas may include other upstream BMPs that impact the
results.
Table 4-7
MS4 Base and Existing Pollution Load Summary
Results by Most-Downstream BMP
Existing
BMPs Area (ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Street
Cleaning 5,838 870 721 17% 7.8% 4,992 4,430 11% 5.1%
Airport
Swales 480 25 0.2 99% 1.3% 206 1 99% 1.9%
City
Swales 520 84 9 89% 3.9% 441 50 89% 3.6%
Catch
Basins 1,051 147 101 31% 2.4% 946 744 21% 1.9%
Structural
BMPs 2,725 431 165 62% 13.9% 2,330 1,282 45% 9.6%
None:
No BMP 2,600 355 354 0% 0.0% 2,007 2,006 0% 0.0%
Total 13,213 1,912 1,351 - 29% 10,923 8,515 - 22%
Appendix B contains a table showing the existing conditions pollutant loads by watershed and the
pollution removal by watershed. Figure 4-14a displays the existing conditions TSS load per acre by
land use. Figure 4-14b displays the existing conditions TP load per acre by land use. Figure 4-15a
displays the existing conditions TSS load per acre by watershed. Figure 4-15b displays the existing
conditions TP load per acre by watershed.
Included in the project area are a number County-owned parcels. Specifically: Winnebago County
Fairgrounds, Winnebago County Community Park, Winnebago County Landfill, Winnebago
County Sheriff’s Department / Solid Waste Transfer Station / County Highway Department parcel
and Wittman Regional Airport. In addition, areas covered by the University of Wisconsin –
Oshkosh Campus are also included in the project area. The City is working with the University
and County on individual Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) to confirm inclusion of lands in
MS4 water quality analysis and maintenance responsibilities. Conversations to this point between
the City and the owning agency have initially identified the City as the agency to take on
responsibility for inclusion of the identified areas in the City’s MS4 analysis. However, since the
MOU documents are not yet in place, areas are quantified separately in Table 4-8. Specific BMP
reductions are noted in Table 4-6 and 4-7.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-19
Table 4-8
Summary of MS4 Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency
Municipality Area
(ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
City of Oshkosh 11,515 1,775 1,288 27% 25.5% 9,952 7,793 22% 19.8%
Winnebago
County 1,515 106 35 67% 3.7% 788 550 30% 2.2%
University of
Wisconsin -
Oshkosh
183 31 28 9% 0.1% 183 172 6% 0.1%
Total 13,213 1,912 1,351 - 29% 10,923 8,515 - 22%
4.4 TMDL Analysis
To prepare for the anticipated TMDL, the City of Oshkosh annual pollutant loadings were modeled
under an additional scenario:
1. Base Conditions: Existing land use conditions with no BMPs applied.
2. Existing Conditions: Existing land use conditions with BMPs applied.
4.4.1 Project Area
All of the lands within the municipal boundary of the City of Oshkosh as of this report were analyzed
with the exceptions described in this section.
Figure 4-16 displays lands designated as TMDL Excluded Areas. These areas are required or
optionally allowed for exclusion by the WDNR when conducting citywide water quality analyses for
TMDL related drainage areas. The primary difference between the MS4 and TMDL excluded areas is
that the MS4 analysis excludes open space undeveloped areas greater than 5 acres in size, while the
TMDL analysis includes these areas. Additionally, the MS4 excluded areas are identified based on
land use as it was in 2004, while the TMDL excluded areas are determined based on existing land use
at the time the TMDL is developed.
The following list summarizes the lands excluded from the TMDL analysis in accordance with current
WDNR TMDL analysis guidance (Appendix A).
WDOT Right-of-Way
County Right-of-Way
Land use for agriculture
Quarry – Industrial Permitted
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-20
4.4.2 Methodology
As with the MS4 analysis, WinSLAMM version 10.0 was used.
In additions, a GIS database was created containing information pertaining to stormwater pollution in
the City of Oshkosh. Information in the database includes:
Subbasins
Soil Type
Existing Land Use
4.4.3 Results: Base Conditions
The TMDL base conditions analysis (existing land use conditions with no BMPs) was run in
WinSLAMM to provide a baseline.
Table 4-9 shows the City’s base pollution loads by land use. Figure 4-17 shows a graphical
representation of the City’s base TSS load relative to its land use. It is significant to note that
although the commercial and industrial areas together make up about 30 percent of the analyzed
area, they account for about 44 percent of the TSS pollution in the City. It is commonly found that
the more highly urbanized land uses (commercial and industrial) produce a higher quantity of
stormwater pollutants on a per acre basis compared with other urban land uses such as residential.
Appendix B contains a list of the base pollution loads for each watershed. Figure 4-18a displays
the total amount of TSS generated in base conditions per acre by land use. Figure 4-19a displays
the total amount of TSS generated within each subbasin on a per acre basis. Figure 4-18b displays
the total amount of TP generated base conditions per acre by land use. Figure 4-19b displays the
total amount of TP generated within each subbasin on a per acre basis.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-21
Table 4-9
TMDL Base Conditions Pollutant Load by Land Use
Land Use Area TSS TP
(acres) (%) (tons/yr) (%) (lbs/yr) (%)
Commercial
Airport 897 6.1 46 2.3 385 3.3
Downtown 266 1.8 52 2.6 265 2.3
Shopping Center 282 1.9 54 2.7 232 2.0
Strip Commercial 909 6.2 230 11.5 979 8.5
Office Park 146 1.0 28 1.4 127 1.1
Sub-Total 2,500 17 410 21 1,989 17
Industrial
Light 1,414 9.7 367 18.4 1,305 11.3
Medium 445 3.0 104 5.2 349 3.0
Sub-Total 1,859 13 471 24 1,654 14
Institutional
Hospital 87 0.6 16 0.8 87 0.8
Miscellaneous Institutional 981 6.7 191 9.6 915 7.9
School 274 1.9 47 2.4 274 2.4
University of Wisconsin-
Oshkosh 192 1.3 33 1.7 193 1.7
Sub-Total 1,534 10 288 14 1,470 13
Open Space
Cemetery 206 1.4 14 0.7 131 1.1
Park 1095 7.5 68 3.4 616 5.3
Railroad 122 0.8 3 0.1 36 0.3
Open Space Undeveloped 1,238 8.5 30 1.5 365 3.2
Sub-Total 2,661 18 114 6 1,147 10
Residential
High Density no Alleys 1,278 8.7 181 9.1 1,296 11.2
High Density with Alleys 11 0.1 2 0.1 12 0.1
Medium Density no Alleys 3,210 21.9 350 17.6 2,670 23.2
Medium Density with Alleys 19 0.1 3 0.1 19 0.2
Low Density 664 4.5 53 2.6 451 3.9
Mobile Home 46 0.3 5 0.2 35 0.3
Multi-Family no Alleys 864 5.9 118 5.9 785 6.8
Multi-Family with Alleys 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0
Sub-Total 6,094 42 712 36 5,269 46
Total 14,648 100 1,996 100 11,530 100
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-22
Commercial
17%
Industrial
13%
Institutional
10%
Open
Space
18%
Residential
42%
Analyzed Area Land Use Distribution
Figure 4-17
TMDL Land Use, TSS, and TP Load Distributions
Commercial
17%
Industrial
14%
Institutional
13%Open Space
10%
Residential
46%
Base TP Load by Land Use
Commercial
20%
Industrial
24%
Institutional
14%
Open Space
6%
Residential
36%
Base TSS Load by Land Use
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-23
4.4.4 Results: Existing Conditions
Once the base load was established, the City’s existing BMPs were evaluated. The existing
conditions analysis for the TMDLs is essentially the same approach as taken in the MS4 analysis.
The only difference being the different excluded areas.
The TMDL results using November 2013 land use and applying all existing stormwater BMPs show
city reductions of 29% TSS and 22% TP. This is essentially the same cumulative citywide result as
the MS4 analysis although individual BMP total reduction may vary slightly. Despite a larger analyzed
area in the TMDL analysis, there is little difference between the reductions in the TMDL and MS4
analyses. This is because of the extensive BMP coverage in the City of Oshkosh. Table 4-10
includes a summary of the existing management conditions for the TMDL analysis. The existing
management practices result in a TSS load reduction of 588 tons annually and a TP load reduction of
2,501 pounds annually.
Note: Results below are displayed by most-downstream BMP. Because WinSLAMM version 10.0
allows BMPs to be run in series, it is less useful to break out reductions by specific BMP categories,
but rather by the final downstream BMP for any given drainage area. For example, the results for
regional wet detention basins show the reductions for all areas that drain to a regional wet detention
basin as the last point of treatment. These areas may include other upstream BMPs that impact the
results.
Table 4-10
TMDL Base and Existing Pollution Load Summary
Results by Most-Downstream BMP
Existing
BMPs
Area
(ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Base Existing Percent
Reduction
Citywide
Percent
Reduction
Street Cleaning 6,111 899 752 16% 7.4% 5,143 4,589 11% 4.8%
Airport Swales 480 25 0.1 99% 1.2% 206 77 63% 1.1%
City Swales 663 89 10 89% 4.0% 490 54 89% 3.8%
Catch Basins 1,083 152 104 31% 2.4% 972 764 21% 1.8%
Structural BMPs 2,848 443 167 62% 13.8% 2,401 1,238 48% 10.1%
None: No BMP 3,463 388 388 0% 0.0% 2,318 2,318 0% 0.0%
Total 14,648 1,996 1,421 - 29% 11,530 9,040 - 22%
Appendix B contains a table showing the existing conditions pollutant loads by watershed and the
pollution removal of each BMP by watershed. Figure 4-20a displays the existing conditions TSS load
per acre by land use. Figure 4-20b displays the existing conditions TP load per acre by land use.
Figure 4-21a displays the existing conditions TSS load per acre by watershed. Figure 4-21b displays
the existing conditions TP load per acre by watershed.
As discussed previously, included in the project area are a number of areas currently County-
owned properties. Specifically: Winnebago County Fairgrounds, Winnebago County Community
Park, Winnebago County Landfill, Winnebago Count Sheriff’s Department / Solid Waste Transfer
Station / County Highway Department parcel and Wittman Regional Airport. In addition, areas
covered by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh Campus are also included in the project area.
The City is working with the University and County on a MOU and has included these areas in the
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
4-24
City’s MS4 analysis. However, since the MOU documents are not yet in place, these areas are
quantified separately in Table 4-11
Table 4-11
Summary of TMDL Area Percent Removal by MS4/Owning Agency
Existing BMPs Area
(ac)
TSS (tons) TP (lbs)
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
Base Existing %
Reduction
% of
Citywide
Reduction
City of
Oshkosh 12,530 1,848 1,339 28% 25.5% 10,434 8,332 20% 18.2%
Winnebago
County 1,935 117 55 53% 3.1% 913 541 41% 3.2%
University of
Wisconsin -
Oshkosh
183 31 27 13% 0.2% 183 167 9% 0.1%
Total 14,648 1,996 1,421 - 29% 11,530 9,040 - 22%
.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-1
5.0 Stormwater Pollution Reduction Analysis
The TMDL currently under development could require higher removal rates than those currently
being achieved by the City. This section describes a number of additional BMPs that were
analyzed in attempt to quantify the extent and cost of BMPs that could be necessary to obtain
compliance.
5.1 Methodology
Using WinSLAMM and other available information a variety of potential BMPs were evaluated in
an attempt to quantify the extent and cost of BMPs. Structural (wet detention basins, biofilters,
rain gardens, catch basins, and engineered swales) BMPs were evaluated.
5.1.1 Identify and Evaluate Structural BMPs to Reduce TSS
A variety of structural BMPs were evaluated to quantify the extent and cost. The general process
for evaluating potential sites for new structural BMPs employed the following measures:
Retro-fitting existing dry detention basins to wet stormwater quality basins
Construction of new wet stormwater quality basins in undeveloped lands, or open spaces
near storm sewer outfalls
Re-development of lands. These lands will be required to reduce post-construction TSS by
40 percent and is included in the City’s overall TSS reduction requirement.
Catch basins with sumps constructed during street reconstruction projects
Conversion of existing swale drainage systems to engineered swales
Incorporation of biofiltration into the landscape for treatment of areas that produce large
loads of pollutants
5.1.1.1 Retro-fitting Existing Dry Detention Basins
A review of existing dry detention basins was conducted to determine the feasibility of converting
these basins into wet stormwater quality basins for the 2008 Plan. A list of dry basins located
within the city was provided to AECOM by City of Oshkosh staff. This list was reviewed and
evaluated for the practicality of retro-fitting the dry detention basins for the 2013 Plan update.
Basins with small drainage areas, or a small size were removed from consideration because the
conversion would be impractical. The remaining basins were analyzed for their feasibility along
with other potential BMP sites as described on Table 5-2.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-2
5.1.1.2 Catch Basins
The city already has a number of catch basins with sumps and plans to continue installing catch
basins during street reconstruction projects. To assess the estimated pollution reduction from
future installation of catch basins, the pollution reduction of catch basins recently installed was
assessed. The following steps were taken:
Measured length of 2012-2013 street reconstruction projects – 5.9 miles
Measured area draining to catch basins in 2012-2013 street reconstruction projects – 110
acres
Determined average drainage area per mile of roadway – 19 acres/mile
Determined tons of TSS removed per acre of drainage area – 0.04 tons/acre*
Determined lbs of TP removed per acre of drainage area – 0.19 lbs/acre*
Estimated drainage area of future road reconstruction projects given an estimated 16.5
miles of roadway to be reconstructed from 2014-2017– 308 acres
Applied tons of TSS removed per acre to estimated future drainage area to determine TSS
reduction from future catch basins – 12.4 tons
Applied lbs of TP removed per acre to estimated future drainage area to determine TP
reduction from future catch basins – 57.1 lbs
*The tons of TSS removed per acre was calculated by dividing the total citywide TSS removed from
the existing catch basins by the total citywide catch basin drainage area. This method was also
used to determine the pounds of TP removed per acre of drainage area.
It is estimated that future catch basin installation from 2014-2017, will remove an approximate
annual TSS pollutant load of 12.4 tons, or approximately 0.7 percent of the City’s total pollutant
load. It is estimated that future catch basin installation will remove an approximate annual TP
pollutant load of 57.1 lbs, or approximately 0.5 percent of the City’s total pollutant load Costs of
installing the catch basins are assumed to be incidental to the street reconstruction program.
5.1.1.3 New Wet Detention Stormwater Quality Basins
The use of new wet detention basins for improved stormwater quality was evaluated on a site by
site basis to assess the feasibility of each site. Sites for potential wet detention basins were
selected in the 2008 plan by first evaluating, through aerial photography, open space located
within subbasins producing large loadings of pollutants. Following this, open spaces located in
other areas of the city were evaluated. City staff also provided input on sites they recommended
for consideration. The evaluation of retro-fitting dry detention basins into wet basins was also
included in this process. This list was revised for the 2013 plan update. A total of 9 sites were
removed from the analysis since the 2008 plan. Table D-1 in Appendix D, illustrates the sites that
were removed from the 2008 plan for the 2013 plan update.
Basin Sizing
For each of the sites selected preliminary calculations were completed to determine the size of
basin that would be required for the drainage basin it would serve. The permanent pool size
required to achieve an 80 percent TSS reduction was calculated using Appendix A of WDNR
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-3
Technical Standard 1001. The basin was sized to treat water from the entire drainage area,
including areas not analyzed, and areas outside of the City. Areas outside of the city or that were
not analyzed were assumed to be open space undeveloped in this analysis. The next step was to
assume that a total area twice the size of the permanent pool area would be needed to construct
the wet detention basin. If the selected site had an available area that was equal to, or larger than
the area needed to construct the basin it was assumed that a basin achieving 80 percent TSS
reduction could be constructed. If the area available at the site was smaller, an estimated percent
control was calculated based on additional information from WDNR Technical Standard 1001 and
assuming a linear relationship.
After the proposed TSS removal rate was found, the TP removal rate was assumed based on the
TSS removal rate. A generic model was created in WinSLAMM to evaluate the drainage area of
the proposed basins per 100 acres. Then the basin was sized for 80% TSS removal to find the
correlated TP removal rate. A TP removal rate of 74% was determined for the TSS removal rate
of 80%. This number was then averaged with the DOT accepted TSS to TP removal rate ratio.
The accepted TSS/TP ratio used by the WisDOT is for every 40% TSS removed, there is 27% TP
removed. This equates to 80/54 ratio. Averaging the two methods, results in a TP removal rate of
64%. Therefore 64% was used to prorate the TP rate for the proposed wet detention basins.
Wet Detention Basin Evaluation
The initial 20 sites were evaluated with City staff and a final list of 12 sites was selected. Some
sites were eliminated from consideration for reasons such as; public acceptability concerns,
stream navigability problems, or contaminated soil (old landfill) concerns. Table D-2 displays the
sites removed from analysis and information regarding the sites can be found in Appendix D. If
conditions change, such as WDNR allowing wet detention basins to be constructed in-line with
navigable streams, these projects could be considered in the future.
The final list of 12 sites was evaluated based on a number of factors to determine the feasibility of
each site. For each factor, the sites were assigned a score. Sites with the highest score were
determined to be the most feasible. The feasibility factors are described in Table 5-1, along with
the scoring values for each factor. The results of the scoring process are shown in Tables 5-2A
and 5-2B. Appendix D contains more detailed information on all the potential wet detention basin
sites evaluated.
Of the 12 sites evaluated there are 6 sites that have overlapping drainage areas. By selecting the
sites which receive the highest scores in these areas a total of 9 sites could be constructed. These
9 sites represent the wet detention basins that are proposed for construction. All sites that were
evaluated are described further in Appendix D. A map is provided showing the drainage area,
location, and approximate permanent pool footprint of each site.
The 9 proposed sites are projected to achieve an approximate annual TSS reduction of 216 tons
and a TP reduction of 948 pounds, which is 12 percent and 9 percent respectively of the City’s
base load.
All 12 final sites are displayed on Table 5-2A and Table 5-2B. The final sizing, scoring, and other
data pertaining to each site is also displayed. The table displays information from the planning
level study conducted at this time. Additional study and design will be required for each site in
order to construct the project and to further determine the amount of TSS and TP reduction that
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-4
will be achieved and/or the size of basin that is required. It is possible that more sites or fewer
sites will be needed depending on the results of more detailed studies of proposed project sites.
Table 5-1
BMP Feasibility Evaluation Factors & Scoring Values
Evaluation Factor Scoring
(1) Pollution Control: The quantity of pollutant (sediment) controlled
through a BMP was estimated using various sources including
WinSLAMM analyses, WDNR documents, and other literature
values.
High (10 pts) > 20 tns/yr
Med. (5 pts) <20, > 10 tns/yr
Low (0 pts) < 10 tns/yr
(2) Capital Cost: The initial land acquisition costs plus the
construction costs make up this category. For each BMP these
costs are estimated using various references, unit costs,
comparisons to like projects, and discussions with city staff.
High (10 pts) < $300,000
Med (5 pts) < $1,000,000, > $300,000
Low (0 pts) > $1,000,000
(3) Cost per Unit of Pollutant Controlled: The cost-effectiveness of
each practice is defined as the Capital Cost of each practice,
divided by tons of pollution removed by each practice on an annual
basis (#2 / #1 above).
High: (10 pts) < $35,000/tn
Med (5 pts) > $35,000 /tn < $70,000/tn
Low (0 pts) > $70,000/tn
(4) Flood Control: Management practices that address both
pollutant control and flood control will likely receive higher support
from local residents. The scoring of this factor is based on the city
staff’s knowledge of flooding control needs for the BMP site and if
the BMP can help meet flood control goals.
Yes: (10 pts): enhanced flood control
potential
Some: (5 pts): minimal flood control
potential
No: (0 pts) no flood control potential or
need
(5) Land Ownership: Land currently under city ownership is more
suitable for BMP installation for economic and administrative
reasons. Other open space land may rank high depending on the
potential for easement or land purchase from other public or private
owners.
High (10 pts): city owned
Med (5 pts): other public owner
Low (0 pts): privately owned
(6) Green Space: Best management practices can be designed to
enhance open space aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and other
recreational uses. Management practices located in existing green
space areas are easier to construct because existing structures do
not need to be removed.
Yes: (10 pts): existing green space at
BMP site
No: (0 pts): no existing green space at
BMP site
(7) Public Acceptability: Certain types of BMPs may not be
perceived as acceptable by the public because of aesthetic,
recreational, safety, or other reasons. The scoring for this category
is based on city staff’s knowledge of overall citizens’ viewpoints.
High (10 pts): high public acceptance.
Low (0 pts): low public acceptance
(8) Comments: Other issues may be considered depending on
the proposed BMP site. Issues such as environment history,
safety, historical significance, or aesthetics may influence the
desirability (feasibility) of a BMP for a specific site.
The issues are summarized in a
Comments column.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX
December 2014
5-5
Table 5-2A
Physical Characteristics of Potential Wet Detention Basins
Proposed
BMP ID Subbasin Address Common Name Practice
Total
Drainage
Area to
BMP
Analyzed Area
within
Drainage Area
Analyzed
Area TSS
Load
Analyzed
Area TP
Load
Available
Land
Proposed
Basin
Area
Required Device
Surface Area
(80% Control)
Required
Land (80%
Control)
Estimated
TSS
Control
Estimated
TP
Control
(acres) (acres) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (%) (%)
4 Stringham
Creek1 1300 Georgia St
South Park
Basins
Expansion
Retrofit 718 659 114 588 12.0 6.00 10.2 20.5 68.6 54.9
35 Sawyer Creek2 S Westhaven Dr
Westhaven Golf
Course - West
Basin
New Basin 261 258 22 179 65.9 2.10 2.1 4.2 80.0 64.0
5 Stringham
Creek1 W S Park Ave South Park
Quarry Basin New Basin 235 193 38 182 1.5 1.5 3.9 7.7 37.4 30.0
36 Libbey Ave /
Nicolet Ave N Main St Libby Ave /
N Main St New Basin 383 310 55 282 3.5 3.50 5.1 10.2 67.0 53.6
7 Sawyer Creek2 Pheasant Creek
Dr
Pheasant Creek
Dry Basin Retrofit 69 69 7 55 3.0 0.62 0.6 1.1 80.0 64.0
26 Anchorage Ct E Murdock &
Bowen St Bowen Street New Basin 340 340 42 301 2.2 1.10 4.5 8.9 56.2 45.0
26-1 Anchorage Ct E Murdock &
Bowen St Bowen Street New Basin 340 340 42 301 0.8 0.40 4.5 8.9 20.3 16.3
6 Omro Rd Washburn St
Washburn St /
Westowne Ave
Basin
Retrofit 77 54 13 56 0.6 0.30 1.3 2.6 54.0 43.2
31 Campbell Creek 9th Ave &
Washburn St
9th and
Washburn New Basin 287 275 31 212 11.1 8.8 8.8 10.6 83.8 61.6
16 Sawyer Creek2 2155 S Oakwood
Rd
Miles Kimball
Dry Basin Retrofit 40 40 5 23 13.0 0.90 0.6 1.2 80.0 64.0
15 Sunnyview Rd
North
4660 Sherman
Rd
Island View
Estates Dry
Basin
Retrofit 49 24 2 17 15.2 0.36 0.4 0.8 80.0 64.0
29 Sawyer Creek2 3000 W 20th Ave Oakwood & 20th
/ Fox Tail Ln
New Basins
(2) 207 148 23 123 7.0 3.16 2.7 5.3 80.0 64.0
BMP not proposed because it is part of another drainage area, These BMPs serve as an alternate location if other BMPs cannot be constructed
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX
December 2014
5-6
Table 5-2B
Wet Detention Basin Scoring and Ranking
Pollution Control Cost
(4) Flood
Control (5) Ownership (6) Open
Space
(7) Public
Acceptability Total
Proposed
BMP ID Subbasin Address Common
Name Practice
(1)
TSS TP
Score
(2) Land +
Construction
Cost
Score
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
(3) Cost
per Unit
of
Control
($/ton)
Score
(tons
/yr)
(lbs/
yr) Yes/No Score Owner Score Yes/
No Score Score Score
4 Stringham
Creek1
1300 Georgia
St
South Park
Basins
Expansion
Retrofit 78.1 323 10 $1,990,000 0 $20,900 $25,000 10 Some 5 City 10 Yes 10 5 55
5 Stringham
Creek1 W S Park Ave
South Park
Quarry
Basin
New
Basin 14.1 55 5 $475,000 5 $1,700 $34,000 10 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 10 50
35 Sawyer
Creek2
S Westhaven
Dr
Westhaven
Golf Course
- West Basin
New
Basin 17.5 114 5 $892,000 5 $8,300 $18,000 10 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 5 45
31 Campbell
Creek
9th Ave &
Washburn St
9th and
Washburn
New
Basin 19.2 50 5 $3,927,000 0 $11,700 $204,000 0 Yes 10 City 10 Yes 10 10 45
7 Sawyer
Creek2
Pheasant
Creek Dr
Pheasant
Creek Dry
Basin
Retrofit 5.6 35 0 $262,000 10 $3,400 $47,000 5 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 5 40
36
Libbey Ave
/ Nicolet
Ave
N Main St Libby Ave /
N Main St
New
Basin 37.0 161 10 $3,729,000 0 $12,800 $101,000 0 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 5 35
26 Anchorage
Ct
E Murdock &
Bowen St
Bowen
Street
New
Basin 23.4 135 10 $1,862,000 0 $5,000 $80,000 0 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 5 35
26-1 Anchorage
Ct
E Murdock &
Bowen St
Bowen
Street
New
Basin 8.5 49 0 $695,000 5 $2,800 $82,000 0 Yes 10 Private 0 Yes 10 5 30
6 Omro Rd Washburn St
Washburn St
/ Westowne
Ave Basin
Retrofit 0.5 157 0 $187,000 10 $2,400 $359,000 0 No 0 Private 0 Yes 10 10 30
16 Sawyer
Creek2
2155 S
Oakwood Rd
Miles
Kimball Dry
Basin
Retrofit 4.3 15 0 $362,000 5 $4,400 $84,000 0 No 0 Private 0 Yes 10 5 20
15 Sunnyview
Rd North
4660 Sherman
Rd
Island View
Estates Dry
Basin
Retrofit 1.7 11 0 $172,000 10 $2,600 $103,000 0 No 0 Private 0 Yes 10 0 20
29 Sawyer
Creek2
3000 W 20th
Ave
Oakwood &
20th / Fox
Tail Ln
New
Basins
(2)
18.5 79 5 $1,172,000 0 $11,700 $63,000 5 No 0 City /
Private 0 Yes 10 0 20
BMP not proposed because it is part of another drainage area, These BMPs serve as an alternate location if other BMPs cannot be constructed
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-7
5.1.1.4 Planned Redevelopment
There are a number of areas within the city that are proposed for redevelopment through the
City’s redevelopment plan. These sites will be required to achieve a 40 percent (or greater) TSS
load reduction, under the City’s Post-Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance and/or NR
151, when construction takes place. A 40 percent TSS load reduction was applied to these sites
as a proposed management practice. These sites do not have a specific timeline for when re-
development will occur. A majority of the planned redevelopment sites are located in the
downtown area. A map displaying the location of the planned downtown redevelopment areas can
be found as Figure 5-1. A total of approximately 129 acres are planned for redevelopment,
achieving a 40 percent reduction over these areas will results in a removal of 11 tons of TSS
annually, which is the equivalent of a 0.6 percent reduction Citywide. The accepted WisDOT TSS
to TP removal rate of 27 percent was applied to find a removal of 65 lbs of TP annually, which is
equivalent to 0.6 percent reduction Citywide.
5.1.1.5 Engineered Swales
Another BMP that was evaluated for pollution removal is engineered swales. Engineered swales
consist of excavating approximately 3 feet below an existing swale, placing an underdrain pipe,
and replacing the native soil with an engineered soil. The underdrain pipe is then connected to an
existing storm sewer. Because of the need for an underdrain engineered swales cannot be
constructed in all areas where swales currently exist. The city evaluated existing swale locations
and determined where engineered swales are feasible. In these areas the conversion of traditional
swales to engineered swales was evaluated using WinSLAMM. Engineered swales were not
looked at in areas where the existing traditional swales were achieving a removal rate greater than
80% TSS reduction. A total of 38 acres could be treated resulting in a potential TSS removal of 8
tons per year, or 0.4 percent of the City’s base load. In addition, 36 lbs of TP would potentially be
removed by the engineered swales or 0.3 percent of the City’s base load. The sites identified
would require approximately 12,000 feet of engineered swales. Engineered swales have a cost
estimated to be $9,000 per 100 feet of swale. This equates to an approximate cost of $1 million.
The cost would be approximately $134,600 per ton of TSS removed.
5.1.1.6 Biofiltration
AECOM has evaluated the feasibility of incorporating biofilters or rain gardens into selected areas
of the City. The first phase of this analysis evaluated the use of rain gardens to treat runoff from
residential rooftops. A WinSLAMM model was created to evaluate the size and depth of rain
garden needed to achieve a 40% removal rate for a standard land use of medium residential.
Since these rain gardens experience greater than 24 hours of ponding, it is recommended that
wet prairie plants are to be used. In addition, it is recommended that the rain gardens be
designed with a depth of 0.2 feet, so the plants will not be completely inundated with runoff. Table
5-3 summarizes the analysis.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-8
Table 5-3
Rain Garden Annual TSS Removal (per 100 acres)
Ratio of Rain
Gardens per Parcel
Number of Rain
Gardens
% TSS
Reduction
Tons TSS
Removed
% TP
Reduction
Lbs TP
Removed
Every House 400 2.9% 0.32 3.4% 2.80
50% of Houses 200 1.8% 0.20 2.1% 1.74
25% of Houses 100 1.1% 0.11 1.2% 1.00
Assumptions:
1) Medium density residential - no alleys land use
2) Average TSS loading (per SLAMM) = 11 tons TSS / 100 acres / year
3) Average TP loading (per SLAMM) = 416 lbs / 100 / 5
4) 1/4 of each treated parcel's roof drains to rain garden
5) Rain garden design parameters
- footprint = 100 sq. ft.
- 0.2 feet depression
- Infiltration rate = 0.07 in / hr
- Planted with Wet Prairie Plants
The next step in the analysis determined the size of a biofilter required to treat one acre of a
specified land use. Biofilters would be incorporated into the landscape to treat runoff from source
areas that produce large amounts of pollutants. Thus, this analysis focused on commercial,
institutional, and industrial land uses. Examples of locations that biofilters could be placed in these
areas are in parking lot islands, along the edge of parking lots, and within road medians. Table 5-4
below describes the results of the biofilters analysis.
Table 5-4
Biofiltration Annual TSS Removal
Land Use % TSS
Reduction *
% TP
Reduction*
Tons TSS
Removed (per
acre of Land Use)
Lbs TP Removed
(per acre of Land
Use)
Biofilter Size
(sq. ft.)
Shopping Center 80% 79% 0.16 0.65 425
Light Industrial 81% 78% 0.21 0.72 325
School 80% 76% 0.14 0.76 250
Assumptions:
1) Biofilters sized to treat 1 acre of selected land use
2) Biofilter Design:
- total depth = 7.0'
- sand storage depth = 3.0'
- rock storage depth = 0.5'
- engineered soil depth = 3'
- standpipe at 6.75' depth
- perforated underdrain at 3.0' depth
* Reductions determined from WinSLAMM version 10.0.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
5-9
To further evaluate the feasibility and practicality of the use of biofilters in accomplishing the
Citywide pollution reduction requirements a brief cost analysis was completed. Also determined
was the amount of pollution that could be removed with varying levels of biofilter implementation
within various land uses. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5
Potential Citywide Biofilter Treatment Level $ Costs
Land Use
Acres NOT
Otherwise
Treated
with
Structural
BMPs
TSS Control with Variable Treatment
Levels (tons/year) Cost /
Biofilter
Cost /
tn**
10% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Med.
Density
Residential
1,913 21 52 104 157 209 $2,300 $ 84,231
Commercial 575 14 35 70 104 139 $7,000
$115,619
Industrial 891 24 61 122 183 244 $6,000 $87,563
Institutional 778 15 37 75 112 150 $5,000
$103,943
** Biofilter costs are based on a rate of $18.50 per SF (Source: "Rain Gardens, A how-to manual
for homeowners"; UWEX Publication GWQ037 and Applied Ecological Services Rain Garden
Design Publication)
Biofilters can be used to achieve the TSS and TP reduction that is required after other BMPs are
implemented. A key to the success of biofilters is long term maintenance. This analysis does not
specify the additional amount of biofilters needed nor the individual locations for biofilter
installation. Biofilters can be used to help achieve future goals once the TMDLs are established.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH
SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014
6-1
6.0 Results
Once the TMDL requirements are established, the City can complete the following steps to meet
the reduction goals:
1. Continue construction of catch basins during street reconstruction process.
2. Construct additional wet detention basins (currently nine basins are identified for
implementation).
3. Obtain required TSS reductions in planned redevelopment areas.
4. Construct engineered swales in 2 locations previously described.
5. Construct biofilters to treat industrial lands to reach the established reductions goals.
The location of proposed BMPs can be seen as Figure 5.2 at the end of the report. Table 6-1
summarizes the pollutant removal from each of the BMP types within the MS4 area.
6.1 TSS Reduction cost
Table 6-2 displays the estimated cost for the projects proposed in this plan. These cost estimates
were determined using a planning level analysis. All cost estimates are in 2013 dollars. It is likely
that the final cost of projects will vary significantly once more detailed information is gathered on
each site. A schedule displaying a proposed construction timeline and costs for each year is
included as part of this report in Appendix E. The unit costs shown in Table 6-3 were used to
determine the cost estimates in Tables 5-2B, 5-5, and 6-2.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014 December 2014
6-2
Table 6-1
Summary of Existing and Proposed Management Practices
TSS Reductions for the MS4 Area
Stormwater Management Scenario
TSS Control
Cumulative
TSS
Controlled
TP Control
Cumulative
TP
Controlled
(tons/yr) %
Reduction % (lbs/year)%
Reduction %
Base Condition = 1,912 tons/year TSS
Base Condition = 10,923 lbs/year TP
Existing Best Management Practices
Street Cleaning 149 8% 8% 562 5% 5%
Airport Swales 24 1% 9% 205 2% 7%
City Swales 75 4% 13% 391 4% 11%
Catch Basins 46 2% 15% 202 2% 12%
Structural BMPs 266 14% 29% 1,048 10% 22%
Sum of Existing Conditions 560 29% 2,408 22%
Potential Best Management Practices
Catch basins (2014-2017) 12 0.6% 0.6% 57 0.5% 0.5%
Proposed Wet Detention Basins 216 11.3% 11.9% 948 9.1% 9.6%
Engineered Swales 8 0.4% 12.3% 36 0.3% 9.9%
Planned Redevelopment 11 0.6% 12.9% 65 0.6% 10.6%
Biofilters TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Sum of Proposed Conditions 248 12.9% 1,106 10.6%
Combined Existing & Proposed
Management Practices 808 41.9% 3,514 32.6%
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-14.DOCX December 2014 December 2014
6-3
Table 6-2
Proposed BMP Costs
Project
Estimated
Land
Acquisition
Cost
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Estimated
Total Cost
Cost Per
Ton TSS
Removed
Estimated
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
Proposed Detention Basin
ID Location/Common Name
4 South Park Pond Expansion 1 $0 $1,990,000 $1,990,000 $25,000 $20,900
5 South Park Quarry Basin $410,000 $286,000 $696,000 $50,000 $3,900
6 Washburn St/Westowne Ave Basin $47,000 $140,000 $187,000 $313,000 $2,400
7 Pheasant Creek Dry Basin $20,000 $242,000 $262,000 $43,000 $3,400
15 Island View Estates Dry Basin $12,000 $160,000 $172,000 $88,000 $2,600
16 Miles Kimball Dry Basin $29,000 $333,000 $362,000 $72,000 $4,400
26 Bowen Street $1,463,000 $399,000 $1,862,000 $71,000 $5,000
29 Oakwood & 20th / Fox Tail Ln $36,000 $1,069,000 $1,105,000 $53,000 $11,700
31 9th & Washburn $1,200,000 $2,727,000 $3,927,000 $204,000 $11,700
35 Westhaven Golf Course - West Basin $168,000 $724,000 $892,000 $42,000 $8,300
36 Libby Ave/N Main St 1 $2,550,000 $1,179,000 $3,729,000 $101,000 $12,800
26-1 Bowen Street $1,463,000 $172,000 $1,635,000 $172,000 $2,800
Engineered
Swales $1,068,000 $1,068,000 $134,600 $26,400
Biofilters - TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Total $7,398,000 $10,489,000 $17,887,000 $1,368,600 $116,300
1 These ponds will also provide both water quality and peak flow benefits. The estimated costs include those costs associated with building a complete
water quality pond. Additional costs may be incurred to add peak flow reduction benefits into the construction of the pond.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\LIBRARY\DEPT\WAT_RES\PROJECTS ON OTHER SERVERS\60268145 - OSHKOSH SWMP\REPORT\R60268145-OSH_SWMP_UPDATE_RPT_FINAL-12-22-
14.DOCX December 2014
6-4
Table 6-3
Unit Costs for BMP Construction and Maintenance Estimating
Construction Unit
Costs
Excavation = $13.50 / cu. yd.
Seeding = $1.15 / sq. yd.
Wetland Planting = $0.83 / sq. yd.
Erosion Matting = $2.50 / sq. yd.
Storm Sewer = $140.00 / lineal foot.
Inlet / Outlet Structure = $15,000 each
Biofilter Plants = $7.50/ sq. ft.
Drain Tile = $15.00 / lineal foot
Engineered Soil = $36.00 / cu. yd.
Pea Gravel = $34.75 / cu. yd
Mason Sand = $18.00 / cu. yd
Land Acquisition Costs
Commercial Land = $653,000 / acre (Sites #12, 26, 26-
1, 29a, 31)
Residential Land = $90,000 / acre (Site #5)
Easement Only Needed = $16,250 / acre (Sites #2, 6,
7, 15, 16, 18)
Golf Course Land = $22,388 / acre (Sites #34, 35)
Open Space = $40,000 (Site #31, #36)
Engineered Swales Construction Costs: $8,900 / lineal foot
Annual Maintenance: $220 / 100 lineal foot
Biofilters Construction Costs: $6,000 each
Annual Maintenance: $500 each
Other Costs A 25% contingency / engineering design costs was
added to the estimated capital costs for each practice.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-
14.docx December 2014
Appendix A
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources Documents
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final-12-22-
14.docx December 2014
General WDNR Policy
Wet Detention Pond
(1001)
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Conservation Practice Standard
l. Definition
A permanent pool of water with designed
dimensions, inlets, outlets and storage capacity,
constructed to collect, detain, treat and release
stormwater runoff.
ll. Purposes
The primary purposes of this practice are to improve
water quality and reduce peak flow.
lll. Conditions Where Practice Applies
This practice applies to urban sites where stormwater
runoff pollution due to particulate solids loading and
attached pollutants is a concern. It also applies where
increased runoff from urbanization or land use
change is a concern. Site conditions must allow for
runoff to be directed into the pond and a permanent
pool of water to be maintained.
This standard establishes criteria for ponds to detain
stormwater runoff, although some infiltration may
occur. In some instances, detention ponds may
present groundwater contamination risks, and this
standard sets criteria for determining when liners may
be necessary to address risks to groundwater. Where
the detention pond will be discharging to an
infiltration practice, see WDNR Conservation
Practice Standards 1002-1004.
Application of this standard is not intended to address
flood control. Modifications to the peak flow criteria
or additional analysis of potential flooding issues
may be needed or required by local authorities. For
ponds used during the construction period, see
WDNR Conservation Practice Standard 1064,
Sediment Basin.
This practice provides a method to demonstrate that a
wet detention pond achieves the total suspended
solids (TSS) reduction and peak flow control required
by NR 151.12, Wis. Adm. Code, for post-
construction sites. Pollutant loading models such as
SLAMM, P8, DETPOND or equivalent methodology
may also be used to evaluate the efficiency of the
design in reducing TSS.
lV. Federal, State and Local Laws
The design, construction and maintenance of wet
detention ponds shall comply with all federal,
state and local laws, rules or regulations. The
owner/operator is responsible for securing required
permits. This standard does not contain the text of
any federal, state or local laws governing wet
detention ponds.
The location and use of wet detention ponds may be
limited by regulations relating to stormwater
management, navigable waters (Ch. 30, Wis. Stats.),
floodplains, wetlands, buildings, wells and other
structures, or by land uses such as waste disposal
sites and airports. The pond embankment may be
regulated as a dam under Ch. 31, Wis. Stats., and
further restricted under NR 333, Wis. Adm. Code,
which includes regulations for embankment heights
and storage capacities.
V. Criteria
The following minimum criteria apply to all wet
detention pond designs used for the purposes stated
in Section II of this standard. Use more restrictive
criteria as needed to fit the conditions found in the
site assessment.
A. Site Assessment – Conduct and document a site
assessment to determine the site characteristics
that will affect the placement, design,
construction and maintenance of the pond.
Document the pond design. Items to assess
include:
1. At the pond site, on a site map:
a. Identify buildings and other structures,
parking lots, property lines, wells,
wetlands, 100-year floodplains, surface
Conservation Practice Standards are reviewed periodically and updated if needed. To obtain the current version of WDNR
this standard, contact your local WDNR office or the Standards Oversight Council office in Madison, WI at (608) 441-2677. 10/07
1 Words in the standard that are shown in italics are described in X. Definitions. The words are italicized the first time they are used in the text.
drains, navigable streams, known drain
tile, roads, and utilities (both overhead
and buried) showing elevation contours
and other features specified by the
applicable regulatory authority.
b. Show location of soil borings and test
pits on site map, characterize the soils,
seasonally high groundwater level1, and
bedrock conditions to a minimum depth
of 5 feet below the proposed bottom of
the pond or to bedrock, whichever is
less. Conduct one test pit or boring per
every 2 acres of permanent pool
footprint, with a minimum of two per
pond. Include information on the soil
texture, color, structure, moisture and
groundwater indicators, and bedrock
type and condition, and identify all by
elevation. Characterize soils using both
the USDA and USCS classification
systems.
Note: USCS characterization is used for soil
stability assessment while USDA soil
characterization identifies the soil’s potential
permeability rate.
c. Investigate the potential for karst
features nearby.
2. In the watershed, on a watershed map:
a. Identify predominant soils, the drainage
ways, navigable streams and floodways,
wetlands, available contour maps, land
cover types and known karst features.
Identify the receiving surface waters, or
whether the drainage basin drains
directly to groundwater.
b. Show channels and overland flow
before and after development, contours,
and property lines.
c. Refer to the Tc (time of concentration)
flow paths and subwatershed
boundaries used in runoff calculations.
B. Pond Design – Properly designed wet detention
ponds are effective at trapping smaller particles,
and controlling peak flows (see App. C, Figures
1-3).
1. Water Quality – Pollutant reduction (TSS
and phosphorus) is a function of the
permanent pool area and depth, the outlet
structure and the active storage volume. The
following criteria apply:
a. Permanent Pool – The elevation below
which runoff volume is not discharged
and particles are stored.
i. Design ponds to include a
permanent pool of water. The
surface area of the permanent pool
is measured at the invert of the
lowest outlet. The minimum
surface area of the permanent pool
must address the total drainage area
to the pond.
Note: Use App. A for the initial estimate of the
permanent pool area based on drainage area.
Prorate values for mixed land uses. Use Equation 1
to solve for qo and iterate as needed.
ii. The permanent pool surface area is
sized based on the particle size and
the peak outflow during the 1-yr.,
24-hour design storm using
Equation 1:
Sa = 1.2 * (qo / vs) [Equation 1(a)]
or
qo = (vs * Sa) / 1.2 [Equation 1(b)]
Where:
Sa = Permanent pool surface area
measured at the invert of the lowest outlet
of the wet detention pond (square feet)
qo = Post-construction peak outflow
(cubic feet/second) during the 1-yr., 24-
hour design storm for the principal outlet
vs = Particle settling velocity (feet/second)
1.2 = EPA recommended safety factor
iii. Particle settling velocities (vs) shall
be based on representative particle
sizes for the desired percent TSS
reduction.
• 80% (3 micron):
vs = 1.91 x 10-5 ft./sec.
• 60% (6 micron):
vs = 7.37 x 10-5 ft./sec.
• 40% (12 micron):
vs = 2.95 x 10-4 ft./sec.
WDNR
. 10/07
2
Note: Particle settling velocities were calculated
assuming a specific gravity of 2.5, a water
temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees C)
and a kinematic viscosity of 0.01308 cm.2/sec.
(Pitt, 2002). The calculations also assume
discrete and quiescent settling conditions per
Stoke’s Law.
b. Active Storage Volume – Volume
above the permanent pool that is
released slowly to settle particles.
Calculate the volume with the following
method:
Use a hydrograph-producing
method, such as the one outlined in
Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Technical Release 55
(TR-55), to determine the storage
volume for detention ponds. This
can be accomplished by using
App. B where:
qo = Peak outflow during the 1-yr.,
24-hour design storm for the
principal outlet calculated using
Equation 1 (see V.B.1.a.ii).
qi = Calculated post-construction
peak inflow or runoff rate during
the 1-yr., 24-hour design storm.
VR = Calculated volume of runoff
from the 1-year, 24-hour design
storm for the entire contributory
area.
VS = The required active storage
volume determined using App. B.
Note: This method may require iterative
calculations.
c. Safety – Include a safety shelf (or
aquatic shelf) that extends a minimum
of 8 ft. from the edge of the permanent
pool waterward with a slope of 10:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter. The
maximum depth of the permanent pool
of water over the shelf shall be 1.5 ft.
d. Depth – The average water depth of the
permanent pool shall be a minimum of
3 ft., excluding the safety shelf area and
sediment storage depth.
WDNR
. 10/07
3
e. Length to Width – Maximize the length
to width ratio of the flow path to
prevent short-circuiting and dead zones
(areas of stagnant water). See Section
VII, Considerations D and N for options
to prevent short circuiting.
f. Sediment Storage – After all
construction has ceased and the
contributory watershed has been
stabilized, one of the following applies:
i. A minimum of 2 ft. shall be
available for sediment storage (for
a total of 5 ft. average depth,
excluding the safety shelf area). For
ponds greater than 20,000 sq. ft.,
50% of the total surface area of the
permanent pool shall be a
minimum of 5 ft. deep. For ponds
less than 20,000 sq. ft., maximize
the area of 5 ft. depth.
ii. Modeling shows that for
20 years of sediment accumulation,
less than 2 ft. sediment storage is
needed (not to be less than
0.5 feet).
iii. A minimum of 4 ft. shall be
available for sediment storage if the
contributory area includes cropland
not stabilized by any other practice,
such as strip cropping, terraces and
conservation tillage.
For information on sediment storage in
forebays, see Section VII,
Consideration C.
Note: Municipalities that use sand in the winter
may consider increasing the sediment storage
depth.
g. Side Slopes Below Safety Shelf – All
side slopes below the safety shelf shall
be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter as
required to maintain soil stability, or as
required by the applicable regulatory
authority.
h. Outlets – Wet detention ponds shall
have both a principal outlet and an
emergency spillway.
i. Prevent Damage – Incorporate into
outlet design trash accumulation
preventive features, and measures
for preventing ice damage and
scour at the outfall. Direct outlets
to channels, pipes, or similar
conveyances designed to handle
prolonged flows.
ii. Principal Water Quality Outlet –
Design the outlet to control the
proposed 2-yr., 24-hour discharge
from the pond within the primary
principal outlet without use of the
emergency spillway or other outlet
structures. If a pipe discharge is
used as the primary principal outlet,
then the minimum diameter shall
be 4 inches. Where an orifice is
used, features to prevent clogging
must be added.
iii. Backward Flow – Any storm up to
the 10-yr., 24-hour design storm
shall not flow backward through
the principal water quality outlet or
principal outlet. Flap gates or other
devices may be necessary to
prevent backward flow.
WDNR
. 10/07
4
iv. Emergency Spillway – All ponds
shall have an emergency spillway.
Design the spillway to safely pass
peak flows produced by a 100-yr.,
24-hour design storm routed
through the pond without damage
to the structure. The flow routing
calculations start at the permanent
pool elevation.
v. Peak Flow Control – Design the
peak flow control to maintain
stable downstream conveyance
systems and comply with local
ordinances or conform with
regional stormwater plans where
they are more restrictive than this
standard. At a minimum:
a) The post-development
outflow shall not exceed pre-
development peak flows for
the 2-yr., 24-hour design
storm.
b) Use a hydrograph-producing
method such as TR-55 for all
runoff and flow calculations.
c) When pre-development land
cover is cropland, use the
runoff curve numbers in Table 1,
unless local ordinances are
more restrictive.
d) For all other pre-development
land covers, use runoff curve
numbers from TR-55 assuming
“good hydrologic conditions.”
e) For post-development
calculations, use runoff curve
numbers based on proposed
plans.
Note: Local ordinances may require control of
larger storm events than the 2-yr., 24-hour storm.
In these cases, additional or compound outlets
may be required.
Table 1 - Maximum Pre-Development
Runoff Curve Numbers for Cropland Areas
Hydrologic Soil Group A B C D
Runoff Curve Number 55 69 78 83
2. Other Pond Criteria
a. Inflow Points – Design all inlets to
prevent scour during peak flows
produced by the 10-yr., 24-hr. design
storm, such as using half-submerged
inlets, stilling basins and rip-rap. Where
infiltration may initially occur in the
pond, the scour prevention device shall
extend to the basin bottom.
b. Side Slopes – All interior side slopes
above the safety shelf shall be 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), or flatter if
required by the applicable regulatory
authority.
c. Ponds in Series – To determine the
overall TSS removal efficiency of
ponds in series, the design shall use an
approved model such as DETPOND or
P8, that can track particle size
distribution from one pond to the next.
d. Earthen Embankments – Earthen
embankments (see App. C, Figure 3)
shall be designed to address potential
risk and structural integrity issues
such as seepage and saturation. All
constructed earthen embankments shall
meet the following criteria.
i. Vegetation – Remove a minimum
of 6 in. of the parent material
(including all vegetation, stumps,
etc.) beneath the proposed base of
the embankment.
ii. Core Trench or Key-way – For
embankments where the permanent
pool is ponded 3 ft. or more against
the embankment, include a core
trench or key-way along the
centerline of the embankment up to
the permanent pool elevation to
prevent seepage at the joint
between the existing soil and the
fill material. The core trench or
key-way shall be a minimum of
2 ft. below the existing grade and
8 ft. wide with a side slope of 1:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter.
Follow the construction and
compaction requirements detailed
in V.B.2.d.iii below for compaction
and fill material.
iii. Materials – Construct all
embankments with non-organic
soils and compact to 90% standard
proctor according to the procedures
outlined in ASTM D-698 or by
using compaction requirements of
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Wisconsin
Construction Specification 3.
Do not bury tree stumps, or
other organic material in the
embankment. Increase the
constructed embankment height by
a minimum of 5% to account for
settling.
iv. Freeboard – Ensure that the top of
embankment, after settling, is a
minimum of 1 vertical foot above
the flow depth for the 100-yr.,
24-hr. storm.
v. Pipe Installation, Bedding and
Backfill – If pipes are installed
after construction of the
embankment, the pipe trench shall
have side slopes of 1:1 or flatter.
Bed and backfill any pipes
extending through the embankment
with embankment or equivalent
soils. Compact the bedding and
backfill in lifts and to the same
standard as the original
embankment.
WDNR
. 10/07
5
vi. Seepage – Take measures to
minimize seepage along any
conduit buried in the embankment.
Measures such as anti-seep collars,
sand diaphragms or use of
bentonite are acceptable.
vii. Exterior side slopes shall be 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with
a minimum top width of the
embankment of 4 ft., or 10 ft. if
access for maintenance is needed.
The embankment must be designed
for slope stability.
e. Topsoil and Seeding – Spread topsoil
on all disturbed areas above the safety
shelf, as areas are completed, to a
minimum depth of 4 inches. Stabilize
according to the permanent seeding
criteria in WDNR Conservation
Practice Standard 1059, Seeding for
Construction Site Erosion Control.
f. Liners – Use the Liner Flowchart in
App. D to determine when a liner is
needed. For types of liners, see the
Liner Flowchart and specifications in
App. D. If a liner is used, provide a
narrative that sets forth the liner design
and construction methods.
Note: Some municipalities have wellhead
protection areas and all municipalities have
source water protection areas delineated by
WDNR. Consult with the local community about
when a liner will be needed if located within one
of these areas.
g. Depth to Bedrock – The separation
distance from the proposed bottom of a
wet detention pond to bedrock will
determine which of the following apply:
i. If the separation distance is a
minimum of 5 ft. and the soil
beneath the pond to bedrock is 10%
fines or more, refer to the Liner
Flowchart to determine if a liner
may be needed for reasons other
than proximity to bedrock;
ii. If the separation distance is a
minimum of 3 ft. and the soil
beneath the pond to bedrock is
20% fines or more, refer to the
Liner Flowchart to determine if a
liner may be needed for reasons
other than proximity to bedrock;
iii. If conditions in (i) or (ii) are not
met, then a Type B liner is required
at a minimum. Refer to the Liner
Flowchart to determine if a Type A
liner may be needed for reasons
other than proximity to bedrock
(see liner specifications in App. D);
iv. If blasting in bedrock is performed
to construct a wet detention pond in
bedrock, then a Type A liner is
required (see liner specifications in
App. D) and an engineering design
must be conducted.
h. Separation from Wells – Wet detention
ponds shall be constructed 400 feet
from community wells (NR 811, Wis.
Adm. Code) and 25 feet from non-
community and private wells (NR 812,
Wis. Adm. Code).
Note: The 25 foot setback from non-community
and private wells is a final construction distance.
This may not be sufficient to prevent running
over the well with heavy equipment during
construction of the pond.
i. Wetlands – For wet detention ponds
that discharge to wetlands, use level
spreaders or rip-rap to prevent
channelization, erosion and reduce
sedimentation in the wetlands.
j. Off-site runoff – Address off-site runoff
in the design of a wet detention pond.
k. Aerators/Fountains – If an aerator or
fountain is desired for visual and other
aesthetic effects (aerators designed to
mix the contents of the pond are
prohibited) they must meet one of the
first two items (i – ii), and items (iii)
and (iv) below.
i. Increase the surface area of the wet
detention pond beyond the area
needed to achieve compliance with
a stormwater construction site
permit. The increase in surface area
is equal to or greater than the area
of influence of the aerator/fountain.
Use an aerator/fountain that does
not have a depth of influence that
extends into the sediment storage
depth (see App. E, Figure 4).
ii. For wet detention ponds where the
surface area is no more than
required to meet the stormwater
construction site permit conditions,
the depth of influence of the device
cannot extend below the sediment
storage elevation. Include in the
design an automatic shut-off of the
aerator/fountain as the pond starts
to rise during a storm event. The
aerator/fountain must remain off
while the pond depth returns to the
permanent pool elevation and,
further, shall remain off until such
time as required for the design
micron particle size to settle to
below the draw depth of the pump.
(See V.B.1.a.iii for the design
micron particle sizes that correlate
with a TSS reduction.)
iii. Aerator/fountains are not allowed
in wet detention ponds with less
than a 5 ft. permanent pool
designed depth.
iv. Configure the pump intake to draw
water primarily from a horizontal
plane so as to minimize the creation
of a circulatory pattern from
bottom to top throughout the pond.
VI. Operation and Maintenance
Develop an operation and maintenance plan that is
consistent with the purposes of this practice, the wet
detention pond’s intended life, safety requirements
and the criteria for its design. The operation and
maintenance plan will:
A. Identify the responsible party for operation,
maintenance and documentation of the plan.
B. Require sediment removal once the average
depth of the permanent pool is 3.5 ft. At a
minimum, include details in the plan on
inspecting sediment depths, frequency of
accumulated sediment removal, and disposal
locations for accumulated sediment
(NR 500, Wis. Adm. Code).
C. Include inlet and outlet maintenance, keeping
embankments clear of woody vegetation, and
providing access to perform the operation and
maintenance activities.
D. Identify how to reach any forebay, safety shelf,
inlet and outlet structures.
E. Address weed or algae growth and removal,
insect and wildlife control and any landscaping
practices.
WDNR
. 10/07
6
F. If a liner is used, show how the liner will be
protected from damage during sediment removal
or when the liner is undergoing repair.
G. Prohibit excavation below the original design
depth unless geotechnical analysis is completed
in accordance with V.A.1.b & c.
VII. Considerations
Consider the following items for all applications of
this standard:
A. Additional conservation practices should be
considered if the receiving water body is
sensitive to temperature fluctuations, oxygen
depletion, excess toxins or nutrients.
B. To prevent nuisance from geese, consider not
mowing around the pond perimeter. To
maximize safety and pollutant removal, consider
spreading topsoil along the safety shelf to
promote plant growth.
C. For ease of maintenance, a sediment forebay
should be located at each inlet (unless inlet is
< 10% of total inflow or an equivalent upstream
pretreatment device exists) to trap large particles
such as road sand. The storage volume of the
sediment forebay should be consistent with the
maintenance plan, with a goal of 5%-15% of the
permanent pool surface area. The sediment
forebay should be a minimum depth of 3 ft. plus
the depth for sediment storage.
D. The length to width ratio of the flow path should
be maximized with a goal of 3:1 or greater. The
flow path is considered the general direction of
water flow within the pond, including the
permanent pool and forebay.
E. Consider providing additional length to the
safety shelf, above or below the wet pool
elevation, to enhance safety.
F. To prevent damage or failure due to ice, all risers
extending above the pond surface should be
incorporated into the pond embankment.
G. The use of underwater outlets should be
considered to minimize ice damage,
accumulation of floating trash or vortex control.
H. Watershed size and land cover should be
considered to ensure adequate runoff volumes to
maintain a permanent pool.
I. Aesthetics of the pond should be considered in
designing the shape and specifying landscape
practices. Generally, square ponds are
aesthetically unappealing.
J. If downstream flood management or bank
erosion is a concern, consider conducting a
watershed study to determine the most
appropriate location and design of stormwater
management structures, including consideration
of potential downstream impacts on farming
practices and other land uses.
K. For wet detention ponds with surface area more
than 2 acres or where the fetch is greater than
500 feet, consider reinforcing banks, extending
the safety shelf, vegetating the safety shelf or
other measures to prevent erosion of
embankment due to wave action.
L. To prevent failure, consider reinforcing earthen
emergency spillways constructed over fill
material to protect against erosion.
M. All flow channels draining to the pond should be
stable to minimize sediment delivery to the pond.
N. Baffles may be used to artificially lengthen the
flow path in the pond. In some designs, a
circular flow path is set up in a pond even when
the inlet and outlet are next to each other and no
baffles are used. Then the flow path can be
calculated using the circular path.
O. Consider using low fertilizer inputs on the
embankments and collecting the clippings.
P. Consider providing a method to facilitate
dewatering during accumulated sediment
removal.
Q. Consider using backflow preventers to minimize
fish entrapment.
R. Consider providing a terrestrial buffer of
10-15 feet around the pond if it has low or no
embankments.
S. Consider a hard surface for the bottom of the
forebay to ease sediment removal.
T. Use of algaecides, herbicides or polymers to
control nuisance growths or to enhance
sedimentation must receive a permit under
NR 107, Wis. Adm. Code. Contact the
appropriate DNR specialist.
U. Consider additional safety features beyond the
safety shelf where conditions warrant them.
V. Consider vegetative buffer strips along drainage
ways leading to the detention pond to help filter
pollutants.
W. After the site assessment is complete, review and
discuss it with the local administering agency at
a pre-design conference to determine and agree
on appropriate pond design for the site.
WDNR
. 10/07
7
X. Design so that the 10-yr., 24-hour design storm
does not flow through the emergency spillway.
The 10-yr. design criteria protects the
embankment from premature failure due to
frequent or long-duration flows through the
emergency spillway.
Y. Where practical, construct the emergency
spillway on original grade.
Z. Conduct a groundwater boring to 15 feet below
the pond and consider the historic “mottling
marks” in assessing groundwater levels.
AA. For partially or fully submerged inlet pipes,
consider using pipe ties or some other method to
keep pipes from dislodging during frost
movement.
BB. Consider employing a geotechnical engineer if
stability of the embankment is a concern and to
justify slopes steeper than 2.5:1.
CC. Assess potential environmental hazards at the
site from previous land uses. The assessment
should use historical information about the site
to determine if the potential for environmental
hazard exists, e.g., contaminated soils,
contaminated groundwater, abandoned dumps or
landfills. Contaminated areas can be located by
reviewing the Bureau of Remediation and
Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS), the
DNR Registry of Waste Disposal Sites in
Wisconsin and the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Information System (SHWIMS) available
through the WDNR website.
DD. Consider direct and indirect impacts to area
wetland hydrology and wetland hydroperiod due
to area hydrologic modifications that result from
routing wetland source waters through a wet
detention pond or releasing the discharge from a
wet detention pond directly into a wetland.
EE. Consider conducting more than one test pit or
boring per every 2 acres of permanent pool
footprint, with a minimum of two per pond, if
more are needed to determine the variability of
the soil boundary or to identify perched water
tables due to clay lenses. For the soils analysis,
consider providing information on soil thickness,
groundwater indicators—such as soil mottle or
redoximorphic features—and occurrence of
saturated soil, groundwater or disturbed soil.
FF. Where the soils are fine, consider groundwater
monitoring if the groundwater table is less than
10 feet below the bottom of the wet pond
because the water table may fluctuate seasonally.
Other impacts on the groundwater table elevation
may be from seasonal pumping of irrigation
wells or the influence of other nearby wells.
Monitoring or modeling may be necessary in
these situations to identify the groundwater
elevation.
GG. For additional guidance on seepage control for
embankments, consult sections V.B.1.c and
V.B.1.e(2) of NRCS Conservation Practice
Standard 378, Pond, particularly if a wet
detention pond’s embankment is considered to
be a dam.
VIII. Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications shall be prepared in
accordance with the criteria of this standard and shall
describe the requirements for applying the practice to
achieve its intended use. Plans shall specify the
materials, construction processes, location, size and
elevations of all components of the practice to allow
for certification of construction upon completion.
IX. References
Center for Watershed Protection, Stormwater BMP
Design for Cold Climates, December 1997.
R. Pitt and J. Voorhees, The Design and Use of
Detention Facilities for Stormwater Management
Using DETPOND, 2000.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Conservation
Practice Standard 378, Pond, July 2001.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Engineering
Field Handbook.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Ponds –
Planning, Design, Construction, Agriculture
Handbook 590, revised September 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Technical
Release 55, Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Wisconsin
Field Office Technical Guide, Section IV.
United States Department of Commerce, Weather
Bureau, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States, Technical Paper 40.
WDNR
. 10/07
8
University of Wisconsin – Extension, The Wisconsin
Storm Water Manual, Part Four: Wet Detention
Basins, Publication No. G3691-P.
Wisconsin State Legislature, Revisor of Statutes
Bureau, Wisconsin Administrative Code; for
information on the codes of state agencies,
including WDNR, see
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code.htm.
X. Definitions
Approved Model (V.B.2.c) – A computer model that
is used to predict pollutant loads from urban lands
and has been approved by the applicable regulatory
authorities. SLAMM and P8 are examples of models
that may be used to verify that a detention pond
design meets the desired total suspended solids
reduction.
Area of Influence (V.B.2.k.i) – The area of influence
of an aerator/fountain is a function of the circular
area of impact of the return water and the mixing area
of the pump, whichever is greater.
Bedrock (V.A.1.b) – Consolidated rock material and
weathered in-place material with > 50%, by volume,
larger than 2 mm in size.
Depth of Influence (V.B.2.k.i) – The depth of
influence of an aerator/fountain is a function of the
impact depth of the return water and the draw depth
of the pump, whichever is greater.
Karst Feature (V.A.1.c) – An area or surficial
geologic feature subject to bedrock dissolution so that
it is likely to provide a conduit to groundwater. May
include caves, enlarged fractures, mine features,
exposed bedrock surfaces, sinkholes, springs, seeps,
swallets, fracture trace (linear feature, including
stream segment, vegetative trend and soil tonal
alignment), Karst pond (closed depression in a karst
area containing standing water) or Karst fen (marsh
formed by plants overgrowing a karst lake or seepage
area).
Seasonally high groundwater level (V.A.1.b) – The
higher of either the elevation to which the soil is
saturated as observed as a free water surface in an
unlined hole, or the elevation to which the soil has
been seasonally or periodically saturated as indicated
by soil color patterns throughout the soil profile.
WDNR
. 10/07
9
Appendix A—Calculation of Preliminary Permanent Pool Surface Area for TSS Reduction 1
80% 60%
Land Use/Description/Management2 Total Impervious
(%)3 Minimum Surface Area
of the Permanent Pool
(% of Watershed Area)
Minimum Surface Area
of the Permanent Pool
(% of Watershed Area)
Residential
• < 2.0 units/acre (>1/2 acre lots)
(low density
• 2.0 - 6.0 units/acre (medium
density)
• > 6.0 units/acre (high density)
8 - 28
>28 -41
>41 - 68
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.3
Commercial/Office
Park/Institutional/Warehouse/Indust
rial/Manufacturing/Storage4
(Non-retail related business, multi-
storied buildings, large heavily used
outdoor parking areas, material storage,
or manufacturing operations
<60
60-80
80-90
>90
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.8
0.6
Parks/Open
Space/Woodland/Cemeteries
0-12 0.6 0.2
Highways/Freeways
(Includes right-of-way area)
• Typically grass banks/conveyance
• Mixture of grass and curb/gutter
• Typically curb/gutter conveyance
<60
60-90
>90
1.4
2.1
2.8
1.0
1 Multiply the value listed by the watershed area within the category to determine the minimum pond surface
area. Prorate for drainage areas with multiple categories due to different land use, management, percent
impervious, soil texture, or erosion rates. For example, to achieve an 80% TSS reduction, a 50 acre (residential,
50% imperviousness) x 0.01 (1% of watershed from table) = 0.5 acre + 50 acres (office park, 85%
imperviousness) x 0.024 (2.4% of watershed) = 1.2 acre. Therefore 0.5 acre + 1.2 acre = 1.7 acres for the
minimum surface area of the permanent pool.
2 For offsite areas draining to the proposed land use, refer to local municipalities for planned land use and
possible institutional arrangements as a regional stormwater plan.
3 Impervious surfaces include rooftops, parking lots, roads, and similar hard surfaces, including gravel
driveways/parking areas.
4Category includes insurance offices, government buildings, company headquarters, schools, hospitals, churches,
shopping centers, strip malls, power plants, steel mills, cement plants, lumber yards, auto salvage yards, grain
elevators, oil tank farms, coal and salt storage areas, slaughter houses, and other outdoor storage or parking
areas.
Source: This table was modified from information in “The Design and Use of Detention Facilities for
Stormwater Management Using DETPOND” by R. Pitt and J. Voorhees (2000).
WDNR
. 10/07
10
Appendix B
Approximate Detention Basin Routing for Type II Storms
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(qo / qi )
(
V
S
/
V
R
)
Peak Outflow Discharge
Peak Inflow Discharge
Storage Volume
Ru
noff Volume
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(qo / qi )
(
V
S
/
V
R
)
Peak Outflow Discharge
Peak Inflow Discharge
Peak Outflow Discharge
Peak Inflow Discharge
Storage Volume
Ru
noff Volume
Source: Technical Release 55, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington,
D.C. 1986. NRCS Bulletin No. WI-210-8-16 (Sept. 12, 1988) amended the TR-55 routing graph for Type II storms to include
flows outside the original range.
WDNR
. 10/07
11
Appendix B (cont’d.)
Rainfall Quantities:
Table 2 provides a summary of the 1-year, 24-hour rainfall totals using NRCS mandated TP-40, which has not been
updated since 1961. Table 3 provides a summary of more current data from the Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the
Midwest published in 1992. Local requirements may dictate the use of one dataset over the other.
Table 2 – Rainfall for Wisconsin Counties for a 1-year, 24-hour Rainfall1
Inches of Rainfall County
2.1 in. Door, Florence, Forest, Kewaunee, Marinette, Oconto, Vilas
2.2 in. Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Calumet, Douglas, Iron, Langlade, Lincoln, Manitowoc,
Menominee, Oneida, Outagamie, Price, Shawano, Sheboygan
2.3 in. Barron, Burnett, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Marathon, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Portage,
Racine, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, Washburn, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, Waushara,
Winnebago, Wood
2.4 in. Adams, Chippewa, Clark, Columbia, Dane, Dunn, Eau Claire, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau,
Kenosha, Marquette, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Rock, St. Croix, Walworth
2.5 in. Buffalo, Green, Iowa, La Crosse, Monroe, Richland, Sauk, Trempealeau, Vernon
2.6 in. Crawford, Grant, Lafayette
1TP – 40: Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau.
Table 3 - Rainfall for Wisconsin Counties for a 1-year, 24-hour Rainfall2
Zone Inches of Rainfall County
1 2.22 Douglas, Bayfield, Burnett, Washburn, Sawyer, Polk, Barron, Rusk, Chippewa,
Eau Claire
2 2.21 Ashland, Iron, Vilas, Price, Oneida, Taylor, Lincoln, Clark, Marathon
3 1.90 Florence, Forest, Marinette, Langlade, Menominee, Oconto, Door, Shawano
4 2.23 St. Croix, Dunn, Pierce, Pepin, Buffalo, Trempealeau, Jackson, La Crosse, Monroe
5 2.15 Wood, Portage, Waupaca, Juneau, Adams, Waushara, Marquette, Green Lake
6 1.96 Outagamie, Brown, Kewaunee, Winnebago, Calumet, Manitowoc, Fond du Lac,
Sheboygan
7 2.25 Vernon, Crawford, Richland, Sauk, Grant, Iowa, Lafayette
8 2.25 Columbia, Dodge, Dane, Jefferson, Green, Rock
9 2.18 Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha, Milwaukee, Walworth, Racine, Kenosha
2Bulletin 71: Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest, Midwest Climate Center and Illinois State Water Survey,
1992.
WDNR
. 10/07
12
Appendix B (cont’d.)
Table 4 – Runoff for Selected Curve Numbers and Rainfall Amounts1
Runoff Depth in Inches for Curve Number of:
Rainfall (inches) 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 98
1.9 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.33 0.50 0.72 1.01 1.39 1.68
1.96 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.23 0.36 0.54 0.77 1.06 1.44 1.73
2.1 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.16 0.28 0.43 0.62 0.87 1.18 1.58 1.87
2.15 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.30 0.46 0.66 0.91 1.22 1.63 1.92
2.18 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.47 0.68 0.93 1.25 1.65 1.95
2.2 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.32 0.48 0.69 0.94 1.27 1.67 1.97
2.21 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.20 0.32 0.49 0.69 0.95 1.28 1.68 1.98
2.22 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.20 0.33 0.49 0.70 0.96 1.28 1.69 1.99
2.23 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.33 0.50 0.71 0.97 1.29 1.70 2.00
2.25 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.21 0.34 0.51 0.72 0.98 1.31 1.72 2.02
2.3 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.23 0.36 0.54 0.75 1.02 1.35 1.77 2.07
2.4 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.26 0.41 0.59 0.82 1.10 1.44 1.87 2.17
2.5 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.30 0.46 0.65 0.89 1.18 1.53 1.96 2.27
2.6 0.03 0.10 0.20 0.34 0.50 0.71 0.96 1.26 1.62 2.06 2.37
1NRCS TR-55, Equations 2-1 to 2-4 used to determine runoff depths.
WDNR
. 10/07
13
Appendix C—Pond Geometry
WDNR
. 10/07
14
Appendix C—Pond Geometry (cont’d.)
WDNR
. 10/07
15
Appendix C—Pond Geometry (cont’d.)
WDNR
. 10/07
16
Appendix D—Pond Liner Design, Decision Flowchart
Pond Liner Design Specifications for Three
Levels of Liners
A. Type A Liners—for sites with the highest
potential for groundwater pollution. They
include:
• Clay (natural soil, not bentonite)
• High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
• Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCL)
1. Clay liner criteria (essentially the same as
the clay below landfills but not as thick):
a. 50% fines (200 sieve) or more.
b. An in-place hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10 -7 cm./sec. or less.
c. Average liquid limit of 25 or greater,
with no value less than 20.
d. Average PI of 12 or more, with no
values less than 10.
e, Clay installed wet of optimum if using
standard Proctor, and 2% wet of
optimum if using modified Proctor.
f. Clay compaction and documentation as
specified in NRCS Wisconsin
Construction Specification 300, Clay
Liners.
g. Minimum thickness of two feet.
h. Specify method for keeping the pool
full or use of composite soils below
liner.
2. HDPE liner criteria:
a. Minimum thickness shall be 60 mils.
b. Design according to the criteria in Table 3
of the NRCS 313, Waste Storage
Facility technical standard.
c. Install according to NRCS Wisconsin
Construction Specification 202,
Polyethylene Geomembrane Lining.
3. GCL liner criteria:
a. Design according to the criteria in Table 4
of NRCS 313, Waste Storage Facility
technical standard.
b. Install according to NRCS Wisconsin
Construction Specification 203,
Geosynthetic Clay Liner.
B. Type B Liners—for sites with medium potential
for groundwater pollution or where need for a
full pool level is high. They include:
• All liners meeting Type A criteria
• Clay
• HDPE
WDNR
. 10/07
17
• Polyethylene Pond Liner (PPL)
1. Clay liner criteria:
a. 50% fines (200 sieve) or more.
b. An in-place hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10 -6 cm./sec. or less.
c. Average liquid limit value of 16 or
greater, with no value less than 14.
d. Average PI of 7 or more with no values
less than 5.
e. Clay compaction and documentation as
specified in NRCS Wisconsin
Construction Specification 204,
Earthfill for Waste Storage Facilities.
f. Minimum thickness of two feet.
g. Specify method for keeping the pool
full or use of composite soils below
liner.
2. HDPE liner criteria:
a. Minimum thickness shall be 40 mils.
b. All other criteria same as for Type A
HDPE liner.
3. PPL liner criteria:
a. Minimum thickness shall be 30 mils.
b. All other criteria same as for Type A
HDPE liner.
C. Type C Liners—for sites with little potential for
groundwater pollution or where the need for a
full pool is less important. They include:
• All liners meeting Type A or B criteria
• Silts and clays
• HDPE (<40 mil)
• PPL (20-24 mil)
• PVC (30-40 mil)
• EPDM (45 mil)
1. Silt/Clay liner criteria:
a. 50% fines (200 sieve), or 20% fines and
a PI of 7.
b. Soil compaction and documentation as
specified in NRCS Wisconsin
Construction Specification 204,
Earthfill for Waste Storage Facilities.
c. Minimum thickness of two feet.
d. Specify method for keeping the pool
full or use of composite soils below
liner.
D. Liner Elevation—All liners must extend above
the permanent pool up to the elevation reached
by the 2-yr., 24-hour storm event.
E. For synthetic liners, follow the manufacturers’
recommendations for installation.
Appendix E—Aerators/Fountains
WDNR
. 10/07
18
Wisconsin Total Maximum Daily Loads
TMDLs
WHAT IS A TMDL?
A TMDL is an analysis used to
calculate a pollutant budget: sources of
the pollutants are identified and then
reductions are given to the various
sources (municipalities, industries,
agriculture) in order to meet water
quality standards. Everyone living and
working in TMDL watersheds can
come together to implement the water
quality goals outlined in the TMDL
report. The end results are better
habitat for fish and aquatic life and
increased usage of our waters for
swimming and boating.
Putting the TMDL Concept
into Perspective
The science behind a TMDL can be mind
boggling! For comparison, imagine a TMDL
like a budget plan for your family, where you
currently spend $2500 on monthly expenses,
but are trying to save money for vacation and
have to reduce this amount by $500.
TMDLs can be expressed through a
formula:
WLA + LA + MOS = TMDL
WLA or Wasteload Allocation
refers to the pollutant load from
point sources: industrial and
municipal treatment plants,
municipal stormwater, CAFOs, etc.
LA or Load Allocation refers to
nonpoint sources such as: runoff
from residential yards, parking lots,
agricultural fields and barnyards.
MOS or Margin of Safety refers to
the level of uncertainty in the
analysis.
TMDL???
Cleaner rivers, streams and lakes ensure quality of life benefits, which lead to
the desirability to work and live in Wisconsin. Tourists and visitors are
attracted to the number of and health of our wonderful water resources.
What is an “impaired” water?
Every 2 years, Wisconsin drafts the
Integrated Report which includes the
Impaired Waters List. This list (a.k.a. the
303(d) list) includes, rivers, streams and
lakes that are not meeting water quality
standards or designated uses and submits
the list to U.S. EPA for approval.
For more information visit the WDNR website: http://dnr.wi.gov and search topic “TMDL”.
Why do we need to create TMDLs?
Wisconsin is required by the Clean Water
Act to develop TMDLs for all waters on
our Impaired Waters List. EPA oversees the
federal TMDL program, while Wisconsin is
currently granted authority to implement
our own program.
Total Maximum Daily Loads FAQ
How many TMDL analyses are supposed to be completed in a year in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin has an agreement with EPA to develop 80 TMDLs per year. EPA develops
our pace or the number of TMDL “beans” based on the number of waters on our list,
divided on average by 8-13 years. One TMDL is equivalent to one water segment
matched with the pollutant of concern (for example, a lake impaired by phosphorus
would count for 1 TMDL). Wisconsin developed it’s first TMDL in 2000, but has been
behind in achieving our goal of 80 because WDNR lacks the proper monitoring data
needed to develop TMDLs, especially on more complex watersheds.
Do TMDLs create new rules or
regulations?
TMDLs do not create new water
quality standards or any rules.
WDNR uses the current rules in
our existing programs to
implement TMDLs (NR 217, NR
216, NR 151, etc.).
Are implementation plans a
required component of TMDLs?
Implementation plans are not
required for TMDLs to be
approved by EPA, but they do
require a section entitled
“reasonable assurance” which
provides the public with the
understanding that DNR has
existing programs that can
Where are TMDLs currently being developed? (see map)
Public input is both required and highly recommended. Engaging partners
early in the process is essential to move the project forward. Stakeholder
involvement during TMDL development and implementation is the key to the
success in meeting our water quality goals.
The attachedguidance,“TMDLDevelopment andImplementationGuidance:Integratingthe
WPDESandImpairedWatersPrograms, EditionNo.2”, was developedforuse byDepartment
staff whenmakingdecisions relatedto implementingrequirements from USEPA-approvedTotal
MaximumDaily Loads(TMDLs)inWisconsinPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(WPDES)
permits.
Section303(d)oftheCleanWater Actrequiresstates to developTMDLstoaddress waterbody
impairments.TMDLsinclude wasteloadallocations (WLAs) for point source dischargers, which
thenmust beaccountedfor inWPDES permits. The attacheddocument, therefore, provides
guidance for staff to helpthemconsistently implement WLA-derivedlimits andrelated
conditionsinWPDES permits.
This guidance was developedby ateamofTMDLandWPDES programstaff fromDNRoffices
aroundthestate over about the last6months.Draft guidance has beenmade available to
WPDES staff for theirinput andtheDepartment is now solicitingcomments from external
stakeholders as well. Oncethe 21 day notice periodiscomplete, all commentswill be
considered,revisionswill be made tothe guidance asneeded, andfinal guidancewill bemade
availabletothe appropriate internal andexternal stakeholders.
Comments relatedtothis draft guidance document shouldbe sent to:
DNRTMDL-WPDESGUIDANCECOMMENTS@wisconsin.gov
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
WASTEWATER POLICY & MANAGEMENT TEAM
WATER RESOURCES POLICY & MANAGEMENT TEAM
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Edition No. 3
November 6, 2013
Guidance Number: 3400-2013-02
This document is intended solely as guidance, and does not contain any mandatory requirements except where requirements
found in statute or administrative rule are referenced. This guidance does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations, and
is not finally determinative of any of the issues addressed. This guidance does not create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the State of Wisconsin or the Department of Natural Resources. Any regulatory decisions made by the
Department of Natural Resources in any matter addressed by this guidance will be made by applying the governing statutes and
administrative rules to the relevant facts.
APPROVED:
November 6, 2013
Date
Page 2 of 52
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________________ 4
2 Overarching Issues __________________________________________________________________________ 6
2.1 DNR Authority for Development & Implementation of TMDLs ___________________________ 6
2.2 TMDLs & Areawide Water Quality Management Plans _________________________________ 6
2.3 TMDLs & the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) ______________________________ 9
2.4 The TMDL Development and Implementation Process _________________________________ 9
2.5 Including TMDL-derived Limits in WPDES Permits ____________________________________ 11
2.6 Administrative or Legal Review of TMDL Provisions __________________________________ 11
3 TMDL Development_________________________________________________________________________ 12
3.1 The “Daily” in Total Maximum Daily Load __________________________________________ 12
3.2 Determining Allocations for a TMDL _______________________________________________ 12
3.3 Methods Available for Developing WLAs ___________________________________________ 12
3.4 Interim Wasteload Allocations ___________________________________________________ 13
3.5 TMDL Development & Permitting Workload ________________________________________ 13
4 TMDL-WPDES Implementation ________________________________________________________________ 14
4.1 WPDES Permits Must Be Consistent With The TMDL __________________________________ 14
4.2 General Permits, Impaired Waters & TMDLs ________________________________________ 14
4.3 Finding Information About Approved TMDLs ________________________________________ 16
4.4 Finding Information About Impaired Waters ________________________________________ 17
4.5 Finding Information About Implementation of a TMDL ________________________________ 17
4.6 Expression of TMDL-derived Effluent Limits in WPDES Permits __________________________ 17
4.6.1 Lower Fox River TMDL _______________________________________________________________ 19
4.6.2 Rock River TMDL ____________________________________________________________________ 23
4.6.3 Lake St. Croix TMDL _________________________________________________________________ 26
4.6.4 Tainter Lake and Lake Menomin (Red Cedar River) TMDL ____________________________________ 30
4.6.5 Non-continuous Discharges ___________________________________________________________ 31
4.7 Relationship of TMDL-derived Limits, other WQBELs, and Technology-based Effluent Limits __ 32
4.8 Phosphorus: Comparing NR 217.13 limits to TMDL-based phosphorus limits ______________ 33
4.9 Demonstrating Compliance with TMDL-derived Effluent Limits _________________________ 36
4.10 Compliance Schedules _________________________________________________________ 40
4.11 Reassigning Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) ________________________________________ 41
4.12 Removing TMDL-derived Limits From Permits ______________________________________ 46
4.13 Variances ___________________________________________________________________ 46
4.14 Antidegradation ______________________________________________________________ 46
4.15 Managing Expiration Dates to Facilitate Implementation _____________________________ 47
Page 3 of 52
4.16 Monitoring TMDL Performance __________________________________________________ 47
4.17 Monitoring of Pollutants Causing Impairments _____________________________________ 47
4.18 WQBEL Calculator Responsibilities _______________________________________________ 47
4.19 Permit Drafter Responsibilities __________________________________________________ 48
5 Appendix A. How to Access TMDL/WLA Information ______________________________________________ 50
6 Appendix B. How to Access Impaired Waters Information __________________________________________ 51
7 Appendix C. Statutes and Administrative Rules Relevant to TMDLs ___________________________________ 52
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 4 of 52
1 Introduction
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires delegated states to determine on a biennial basis
whether water bodies are impaired (not meeting designated uses or water quality criteria). One of the
underlying goals of the Clean Water Act is to restore all impaired waters so they meet applicable water
quality standards. One of the key tools to meet this goal is the development of a total maximum daily
load (TMDL). A TMDL is developed after consideration of all sources of pollution to an impaired
waterbody and is stated as the amount of a pollutant that the waterbody can assimilate and not exceed
water quality standards.. Pollutant loads are determined in consideration of in-water targets that must
be met for the waterbody to respond. Targets may be based on promulgated numeric water quality
criteria (e.g., dissolved oxygen > 5.0 mg/L; E. coli bacteria < 235 cfu/100 ml) or may be based on
narrative water quality criteria developed in consideration of local data and/or nearby reference sites.
Once targets are set for a waterbody, the TMDL is established by allocating the allowable load between
the point sources (WLA) and the nonpoint sources (LA) with a small amount of the total load set aside as
a margin of safety (MOS). Thus, three components make up a TMDL: WLA + LA + MOS.
The wasteload allocation (WLA) is the total allowable pollutant load from all point sources (e.g.
municipal, industrial, CAFOs, MS4 stormwater). Reserve capacity may either be built into the WLA or
be a separate component of the total loading capacity to allow for future growth in the watershed.
The load allocation (LA) is the allowable pollutant load from non-point sources (agricultural, CAFO
off-site landspreading, residential runoff, etc.). Natural sources (e.g., runoff from undisturbed areas)
are typically covered under the load allocation, and whenever possible NPS loads and natural
background loads should be distinguished.
The margin of safety (MOS) accounts for uncertainty in modeling and calculating WLAs and LAs.
By federal law, TMDLs must be expressed as a daily load. However, a TMDL may also reflect monthly,
annual and seasonal loads needed to meet applicable water quality standards. For more information
related to TMDL development, including a list of USEPA approved TMDLs, visit:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/. See also section 4.3 on p. 16.
TMDL-WPDES Issues
Federal and state regulations require implementation of TMDLs to meet water quality standards where
there are implementation mechanisms (i.e., Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
permits in place and supported by law. For point source discharges, WLAs delineated in the TMDL need
to be expressed in each permit as a water quality-based effluent limit. In order to address topics related
to the implementation of state and federally approved TMDLs in WPDES permits, the "TMDL
Implementation Guidance Team” (guidance team) was formed. Based on discussions with regional and
central office staff, this guidance team developed a list of issues related to issuing WPDES permits in
areas where TMDLs have been approved. The following guidance is intended to address issues related to
“traditional” wastewater permits, that is, not stormwater or CAFO permits. Department staff are
developing separate TMDL implementation guidance that will address stormwater and CAFO permitting
issues.
This guidance document, while comprehensive, is meant to be dynamic - updated as program needs
dictate. This is due in part to the experience the WDNR will gain as we implement TMDLs and the guidance
in this document. This 2013 edition constitutes the second release of this guidance document. Any
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 5 of 52
guidance written prior to this date is no longer appropriate for use in the TMDL-WPDES implementation
program.
Contributors to this document (editions #1 and #2):
Kathy Bartilson
Jim Bauman
Corinne Billings
Jim Bertolacini
Nicole Clayton
Mark Corbett
Kari Fleming
Jackie Fratrick
Mike Hammers
Kevin Kirsch
Paul La Liberte
Amanda Minks
Pat Oldenburg
Thanks also to Water Quality and Watershed Management staff statewide, DNR Legal Services staff, and
United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 (Permits, TMDL, & Legal staff) who
shared their questions and comments with the guidance team. Your input was essential to creating a
detailed guidance document that will lead to more effective TMDL development and implementation.
Further guidance development is planned to address issues not yet covered by this document. Department
staff and others that use this document should contact Water Resources, Wastewater, or Runoff
Management PMT members if they wish to suggest issues that may need to be addressed in future
revisions or additions to this document.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 6 of 52
2 Overarching Issues
Section 2 addresses topics that are related to both the development and implementation of TMDLs in WPDES permits.
Subjects such as regulatory authority, processes for implementation, and public input opportunities are covered.
2.1 DNR Authority for Development & Implementation of TMDLs
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires three steps:
Identify waters that are impaired (after the application of technology and water quality-based effluent limitations).
Prioritize waters, taking into consideration the severity of their pollution.
Establish TMDLs for these waters at levels necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, accounting for
seasonal variations and with a margin of safety to reflect lack of certainty about dischargers and water quality.
Under s. 303(e) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop plans for all waters. The plans should include,
among other things, (1) discharge limits as stringent as the requirements of its water quality standards and (2) TMDLs.
USEPA guidance has proposed that states complete TMDLs within 8 to 13 years of listing the waterbody on the s. 303(d)
list. As the complexity of TMDLs grows nationwide, USEPA is setting TMDL quotas with the state to help them keep on
pace. Wisconsin’s TMDL “quota” changes each federal fiscal year (FY), but was 40 TMDLs per year in FY 2013 (TMDLs are
counted by stream reach and individual pollutant). This number changes as TMDLs are developed and new waters are
listed. Once USEPA approves a TMDL, WPDES permits that are issued or reissued must be consistent with the TMDL
WLA.
Wisconsin administrative rules that apply to establishing TMDLs, which along with applicable statutes are summarized in
Appendix C. Chapters 283, Wis. Stats., and NR 121, Wis. Adm. Code, specifically address TMDLs and statewide Areawide
Water Quality Management Plans (AWQMP. Section 283.83(1)(c), Wis. Stats., requires TMDLs to be included in
AWQMPs. Section 283.31(3), Wis. Stats., requires permits to include effluent limitations necessary to avoid exceeding
TMDLs established pursuant to s. 283.83(3), Wis. Stats. Section, NR 121.05(1)(e), Wis. Adm. Code, reflects the statute by
requiring TMDLs in AWQMPs for each water quality limited segment. Together s. 283.83(3), Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 121,
Wis. Adm. Code, establish the procedure to formally approve a TMDL as an amendment to the AWQMP. Chapter NR
212, Wis. Adm. Code, contains requirements for WLAs and corresponding WQBELs for BOD in specific stretches of the
Wisconsin and Lower Fox Rivers.
2.2 TMDLs & Areawide Water Quality Management Plans
Areawide Water Quality Management Plans (a.k.a. Basin Plans) are a required part of the Clean Water Act, which is
reflected in ch. NR 121, Wis. Adm. Code. The Department updates Areawide Water Quality Management Plans through
a continually updated computer database (Waterbody Assessment, Tracking, and Electronic Reporting System
(WATERS)). Separate from the plan update process is the plan amendment process. Historically, plan amendments have
been used for key management actions with significant regulatory or grant implications. A plan amendment is a specific
document that is officially added to the AWQMP plan through public review and approval by the DNR and USEPA.
Examples of documents handled this way historically are Priority Watershed Plans and Sewer Service Area Plans. For
more details on watershed planning consult http://intranet.dnr.state.wi.us/int/water/wm/wadrs/planning/. TMDL
development and implementation may also occur on a smaller scale than the AWQMP for a basin (e.g., HUC-10 or HUC-
12 watersheds). The smaller scale watershed TMDLs would also be amended to the original AWQMP.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 7 of 52
Once a draft TMDL is reviewed by internal DNR staff and USEPA, a public informational hearing is held to meet the public
input expectations of the AWQMP amendment process. The DNR public notices a public comment period of at least 30
days and the date(s) of the public informational hearing. DNR staff review all comments received during the public
comment period and information hearing. If significant changes to the TMDL are made during this first step, the TMDL
will go through the initial steps of the process again, and be re-submitted for public comment. However, if no significant
changes are made, the TMDL is officially approved with the Water Quality Bureau Director’s signature, and then
submitted to USEPA for their approval.
With USEPA’s approval, the TMDL is considered final and automatically updated to the AWQMP pursuant to ch. NR 121,
Wis. Adm. Code, as shown in the flow diagram on page 8. Once the TMDL is approved, all issuances and reissuance of
WPDES permits for point sources addressed by the TMDL need to be consistent with the WLAs in the TMDL.
The preamble in the Federal Register establishing 40 CFR 130.6 (50 FR 1779) clearly states that when a TMDL is approved
by USEPA, the AWQMP are considered automatically updated and approved. Therefore, once a TMDL is approved, the
WLAs contained in the TMDL are also incorporated into the federally approved AWQMP.
The steps are as follows (and also reflected in the flow diagram on page 8):
Step 1. Prepare Draft TMDL
Step 2. Internal & USEPA Review; revise TMDL
Step 3. Schedule public informational hearing, prepare Public Notice and Press Release
Step 4. Post TMDL on web, start formal comment period (minimum of 30 days) and hold public informational hearing(s)
Step 5. Receive and respond to public comments
If significant changes are needed to TMDL return to Step 2. If no significant changes move to Step 6.
Step 6. Bureau Director signs TMDL; TMDL is sent to USEPA for approval. 1
Step 7. USEPA reviews the TMDL.2 Under 40 CFR 130.7(d)2., USEPA must either approve or disapprove the TMDL. If it is
disapproved, USEPA must propose a revised TMDL.
Step 8. Once DNR receives signed approval from USEPA, TMDL is automatically updated as amendment to the AWQMP.
Step 9. TMDL is posted on DNR website as state and federally approved, and updated to the WATERS database.
Step 10. Implementation planning continues.
1 Constituents questioning when to challenge the state approved TMDL should consult with outside legal counsel or refer the inquiry to DNR legal staff. See also p. 11
for more discussion of this topic.
2 Affected party may challenge USEPA decision in federal court (5 USC s. 702). If challenge is successful, TMDL comes back to USEPA. USEPA may request state’s
assistance to help address issues outlined in the court decision.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 8 of 52
Process for Approval of a TMDL and amending the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan
Prepare
draft
TMDL
Preliminary Internal
DNR & USEPA
Review of draft
TMDL
Prepare public notice &
press release for draft
TMDL
Public informational hearing &
comment period (min. 30 days)
for draft TMDL
Respond to comments & revise TMDL as
appropriate
If significant changes to the draft TMDL are
made after the public comment period,
TMDL is revised and review process begins.
DNR approves TMDL and submits
final TMDL to USEPA for
approval or disapproval (see
discussion above)
USEPA reviews &
approves TMDL; upon
approval TMDL is
automatically updated to
the AWQMP*
Final TMDL: posted on
website and report attached in
WATERS
Move toward TMDL
implementation planning
(permits, NR 151, etc.)
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 9 of 52
The process for amending TMDLs to AWQMPs will be the same for designated and nondesignated areas of the state as
outlined in the flow diagram shown on page 8. In designated areas, AWQMPs are prepared by a designated planning
agency such as a regional planning commission rather than DNR. Ideally, the planning agency for designated areas of the
state will be involved in the development of TMDLs in its area. At a minimum, designated planning agencies will be
solicited for participation in creating the draft TMDL.
As mentioned previously, according to federal regulations USEPA must either approve or disapprove the TMDL. If it is
disapproved, USEPA must propose a revised TMDL. Should this happen and it is not possible to coordinate AWQMP plan
update into USEPA’s process, a separate AWQMP process might be necessary.
2.3 TMDLs & the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA)
Chapter NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, specifies the level of Environmental Analysis and Review for various Department
Actions. Section NR 150.03(6)(b)5, addresses adoption and revision of Areawide Water Quality Management Plans. Item
d. in that section refers to “Other plan elements that would predetermine future department actions under ss. 281.41
[plans and specs for WWTP modifications] and 283.31 [WPDES permit procedures], Wis. Stats., or ch. NR 110.08 (4)
which require conformance to the areawide plan.” Revising an AWQMP to include any of the elements listed in item d.,
including TMDLs, is considered to be a Type III action. Type III actions require issuance of a news release or other public
notification under ch. NR 150.21,but do not require preparation of an environmental assessment or impact statements.
2.4 The TMDL Development and Implementation Process
The following is a graphic overview of the steps in the TMDL development and implementation process (see the
flowchart on page 10). However, issues such as DNR staffing, other competing workloads, etc., may alter this process.
DNR can elect to develop joint or separate nonpoint and point TMDL implementation plans and amend them to the
AWQMP. WPDES permit recommendations formally amended to the AWQMP must be incorporated into all permits
issued in the watershed, according to s. 283.31(3)(e), Wis. Stat. This is a mechanism for settling permit issues that affect
multiple dischargers in the watershed.
Implementation Plan Examples:
Justifies permit limits expressed in forms other than daily maximum & monthly/weekly averages
Describes use of water quality trading framework
Establishes principles for access to reserve capacity (how it will be allocated, etc.)
Provides a general timeframe for compliance with WLA consistent with applicable administrative rules
Indicates whether affected permits will be issued at the same time and, if so, how (e.g., allow some permits to
expire/ modify others so all permits may be reissued at once)
Describe TMDL specific requirement for WPDES regulated landspreading activities
Provides details on conveyance of general WPDES permit coverages
Recommends approaches for ensuring WLAs for stormwater are implemented through WPDES permits.
Implementation Guidance Examples (this document is an example):
Establishes statewide guidance for implementing TMDLs in permits (this document is an example)
Establishes statewide guidance for water quality trading
Establishes statewide guidance for watershed permitting
Establishes statewide guidance for TMDL implementation planning
NOTE: The needs of each TMDL may change how certain steps are implemented.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 10 of 52
Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan (AWQMP)
TMDLs and Implementation Plans
are amended to AWQMPs following TMDL public participation process.
Implementation Guidance
Establishes details that are expected to be different from permit to
permit or to change over time as implementation continues.
May be developed with input from stakeholders,
but no formal public review process is required under state law.
(See examples on the previous page.)
WPDES Permit
- Include WQBELs in permit with monitoring requirements consistent
with administrative rules and state statues
- Develop permittee-specific compliance schedules, when needed,
consistent with rules, statutes, & implementation plans
- Include facility-specific details as allowed by law (e.g., adaptive
management steps, pollutant trading, variances, etc.)
TMDL
- Establishes WLAs
- Expresses WLAs as daily loads & other appropriate forms
- Provides WLAs expressed in format intended to be used for WPDES permit limit(s)
- Identifies which WLAs should be included as WPDES permit limits
- Expresses WLAs for stormwater discharges
- Establishes reserve capacities
Implementation Plan
Specific to each TMDL.
Establishes implementation details that need public review
and do not expect to change over time.
(See examples on the previous page.)
WQBEL Recommendations
- Include WLAs in limit recommendations memo that are going to be
permit limits
- Determine whether WLA-based limit replaces other WQBELs
- Recommend monitoring for pollutants of concern discharged to
Impaired Waters
- Translate WLAs into permit limits, when necessary
- Address antidegradation, when necessary
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 11 of 52
2.5 Including TMDL-derived Limits in WPDES Permits
Once a TMDL has been approved by USEPA, all WPDES permits issued from that point forward must be
consistent with the TMDL. See Section 4 for more detailed discussions regarding the expression of
TMDL-derived limits in WPDES permits.
2.6 Administrative or Legal Review of TMDL Provisions
Opportunities for administrative and judicial review of TMDLs and implementation plans are available.
State Approval of TMDL & Areawide Water Quality Management Plan Amendment: Affected or
interested entities should consult with their own legal counsel regarding the appropriate time and
forum for seeking review of a TMDL. It should be noted that a TMDL is not final until USEPA
approves it. Once DNR submits its proposed TMDL to USEPA,USEPA must approve or disapprove the
TMDL within 30 days (see 40 CFR 130.7(d)2). Refer to the diagram on page 8 that outlines the
process for developing TMDLs and incorporating TMDLs into an AWQMP.
Federal Approval of TMDL: The parts of a TMDL that are reviewed and acted on by USEPA may be
challenged at the federal level. Provisions that appear in the TMDL but are not mandatory from a
federal perspective (e.g. some implementation issues) are not part of USEPA’s approval authority
and therefore are not subject to federal appeal because, in essence, the federal government will
render no opinion on them. USEPA has stated that it reviews the following when reviewing a TMDL:
o Submittal Letter
o Identification of watershed, pollutants of concern, pollutant sources and ranking
o Applicable water quality standards and numeric targets
o Loading Capacity
o Load Allocations, Wasteload Allocations and Margin of Safety
o Seasonal Variation
o Reasonable Assurances
o Public Participation
o Technical Analyses and Supporting Documentation
WPDES Permit Issuance/Reissuance: The permittee or a third party may adjudicate the terms and
conditions of a WPDES permit pursuant to section 283.63, Wis. Stats, which states that any permit
applicant, permittee, affected state or five or more persons may secure a review by the department
of the reasonableness of or necessity for any term or condition of any issued, reissued or modified
permit, or any water quality-based effluent limitation established under s. 283.13(5), Wis. Stats.
However, all WPDES permits must be consistent with the federally approved TMDL and the
AWQMP, including wasteload allocations pursuant to the TMDL.
TMDL decisions included in the AWQMP amendment (e.g., WLAs specified in the TMDL) may not be
challenged under s. 283.63, Wis. Stats., when they are incorporated into a WPDES permit because
the public already had an opportunity to challenge those decisions when the TMDL was approved
and the AWQMP was amended. Other determinations that were not included in the AWQMP
amendment (e.g., the translation of a WLA into an effluent limitation) may be challenged at the time
of permit reissuance or modification pursuant to s. 283.63, Wis. Stats.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 12 of 52
3 TMDL Development
Section 3 addresses topics associated with the development of TMDLs, as they relate to the
implementation of TMDL requirements in WPDES permits. This section is not intended to be a
comprehensive guide to TMDL development. (More comprehensive guidance on that subject is being
developed elsewhere.) Subjects such as methods for determining wasteload allocations and expressing
them in the TMDL are covered here.
3.1 The “Daily” in Total Maximum Daily Load
All allocations (load and wasteload allocations) must be expressed in the TMDL in terms of daily time
increments, because of a federal court decision1. If consistent with the applicable water quality standard
(WQS), allocations may also be expressed as minimum, maximum, or average daily loads. For example, a
TMDL for pH may include both minimum and maximum values, which is consistent with how the
applicable WQS for the parameter pH is expressed (commonly as a range). Further, allocations may be
expressed in terms of differing maximum daily values depending on the season of the year, stream flow
(e.g., wet vs. dry weather conditions) or other factors. In certain circumstances, or where the applicable
water quality criteria are expressed as a long-term average, it may be appropriate for the TMDL to also
include WLAs expressed as weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual, or other appropriate time increments. It
is often helpful to express WLAs in ways (in addition to daily) that will be incorporated into WPDES
permits. See Section 4.6 for guidance on how to express WLAs as permit limits.
1 “Establishing TMDL “Daily” Loads in Light of the Decision by the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
in Friends of the Earth, Inc. vs. USEPA, et al., No. 05-5015, April 25, 2006, and Implications for NPDES
Permits.” USEPA Memo, Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, November 15, 2006.
3.2 Determining Allocations for a TMDL
Allocations are based on water quality standards and appropriate flow conditions determined for that
waterbody or watershed. If numeric water quality standards do not exist for the pollutant of concern,
water quality targets may be based on other existing standards or narrative standards. Water Evaluation
Section staff will work with contractors or identified project managers to select allocation methods from
those identified by USEPA in the development of draft TMDLs. The chosen procedures should be shared
with DNR program staff and technical teams internally and externally, as appropriate.
3.3 Methods Available for Developing WLAs
Methods used for deriving WLAs in TMDLs depend on the scale of the project, size of the watershed,
number of permitted entities, and other factors. USEPA's Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001, 3/91; http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf)
lists 19 different allocation schemes for developing WLAs. However, a proportional allocation method is
the most popular and, in the absence of detailed cost data, the most equitable method. A proportional
allocation method sets allocations proportional to a baseline load. For example, the baseline load for a
WPDES permittee could be the current discharge load or permitted discharge load of the pollutant
addressed by the TMDL.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 13 of 52
3.4 Interim Wasteload Allocations
Interim wasteload allocations are not usually provided in a TMDL. TMDLs have to be written to meet
water quality standards. Therefore, the WLA and LA must reflect what is needed to meet the water
quality standards addressed by the TMDL.
3.5 TMDL Development & Permitting Workload
In the future, selection of TMDL projects may be based on permitting needs. Currently, however,
selection of TMDLs are determined by the amount of data, local interest, and resources available for a
particular water body or watershed. If a permittee would like to discharge or increase discharge to an
impaired water, a TMDL is needed for the pollutant of concern and the facility must meet the
requirements of the TMDL to be allowed to discharge.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 14 of 52
4 TMDL-WPDES Implementation
Section 4 addresses topics related to TMDL implementation in WPDES permits. Subjects such as
expressing WLAs as permit limits, compliance schedules, variances & adjudications, and others are
covered.
4.1 WPDES Permits Must Be Consistent With The TMDL
All WPDES permits must be consistent with point source wasteload allocations (WLAs) included in state
and USEPA approved TMDLs . The Department may modify a permit to include TMDL-derived limits or
include TMDL-derived limits when the permit is reissued. Department staff should consult the amended
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (AWQMP) and the TMDL implementation plan to determine
which permit action is appropriate. Once a TMDL has been approved, however, effluent limits or other
requirements consistent with the TMDL must be included in the permits of those point sources
addressed by the TMDL.
Alternatively, different permit alternatives (e.g., watershed permitting) could be considered for TMDL
implementation. The Department is considering separate guidance for alternate permitting approaches.
4.2 General Permits, Impaired Waters & TMDLs
Since general permits cover facilities in watersheds across the state, there needs to be permit language
that requires facilities to implement measures consistent with TMDLs. Proposed permit and fact sheet
language is shown below, which can be used in some general permits written for traditional wastewater
discharges (not stormwater or CAFO). Permits staff may choose to modify this language, if the standard
language below does not seem to apply to certain general permitting situations (e.g., in the case of the
pit trench/dewatering general permit, most discharges occur for less than one year) or where the TMDL
specifies individual wasteload allocations for general permit holders. More examples of permit language
that addresses impaired waters and TMDLs can also be found in recently reissued general permits.
Proposed Permit Language
1.1 Impaired Waters & TMDL Requirements for Surface Water Discharges
1.1.1 Report Discharge to an Impaired Surface Water. The permittee shall report, on the annual
discharge monitoring report, whether the facility has a detectable pollutant of concern discharge
to an impaired surface water on the 303(d) list or a surface water with a State and USEPA
approved Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) allocation.
Note: The section 303(d) list of Wisconsin impaired surface water bodies may be obtained by
contacting the Department or by searching for the section 303(d) list on the Department’s
Internet site. The Department updates the section 303(d) list approximately every two years. The
updated list is effective upon approval by USEPA. The current section 303(d) list can be found
here: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/.
1.1.2 TMDL Implementation. Facilities discharging a pollutant of concern to an impaired water for
which there is an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) under this permit must implement
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 15 of 52
treatment/control measures which ensure the discharges of the pollutant of concern meet the
applicable WLA in the TMDL. Existing discharges covered under this permit shall comply with any
allocation granted to general permit discharges in any State and USEPA approved TMDLs
established for the water body receiving the discharge that is in effect on the start date of this
permit.
Note: A “pollutant(s) of concern” means a pollutant that is contributing to the impairment of a
water body. State and Federal Approved TMDLs can be identified by contacting the Department,
or by searching for the State and Federal Approved TMDL list on the Department Internet site. A
list of State and Federal Approved TMDLs in Wisconsin can be found here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/.
1.1.3 New or Increased pollutant discharge to a 303(d) listed impaired surface water . A
permittee may not establish a new wastewater discharge of a pollutant of concern to an impaired
water body or significantly increase an existing discharge of a pollutant of concern to an impaired
water body unless the new or increased discharge does not contribute to the receiving water
impairment, or the discharge is consistent with a State and Federal approved total maximum daily
load (TMDL) allocation for the impaired water body. Any new or significantly increased pollutant
of concern discharge to an impaired surface water authorized under this general permit shall be
consistent with the wasteload allocation for general permittees within the basin.
Proposed Fact Sheet Language
Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) Implementation. Facilities discharging under this general permit
shall comply with the allocation in any State and Federally Approved Total Daily Maximum Load
(TMDL) established for the water body receiving the discharge that is in effect on the start date of
this permit.
Note: A “pollutant(s) of concern” means a pollutant that is contributing to the impairment of a
water body. State and Federal Approved TMDLs can be identified by contacting the Department, or
by searching for the State and Federal Approved TMDL list on the Department Internet site. A list of
State and Federal Approved TMDLs in Wisconsin can be found here: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/.
New or Increased Discharges. In general, 40 CFR 122.4, prohibits the issuance of a WPDES permit to
a new discharger that will contribute to a violation of a water quality standard in a 303(d) listed
water. Also, an increased discharge of a pollutant of concern that would cause or contribute to a
violation of a water quality standard in a 303(d) listed water is not to be allowed. Therefore, this
general permit specifies that a permittee may not establish a new pollutant of concern discharge to
a 303(d) listed impaired water body or significantly increase the discharge of a pollutant of concern
to an impaired water body unless the new or increased discharge does not contribute to the
receiving water impairment, or the new discharge is consistent with a Department finalized total
maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation for the impaired water body. Any new or increased pollutant
of concern discharge to an impaired surface water authorized under this general permit shall be
consistent with the wasteload allocation for general permittees discharging to an impaired receiving
water.
This general permit cannot be used if this requirement is not met for a new discharger. For a new
operation requesting coverage under this general permit, the Department will evaluate the
proposed new pollutant discharge amount and receiving water to determine if the above
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 16 of 52
requirement can be met. A variety of options may be available to insure any proposed new
discharger does not contribute to the receiving water impairment such as on-site capture of the
pollutant of concern, an alternate discharge location, wastewater reuse opportunities, directing the
discharge to a seepage area, enhanced treatment options so the discharge would meet the water
quality standard, etc.
If an existing discharger would propose a significant increase in a pollutant of concern discharge to
an impaired water body, evaluation of the proposed increase would begin via notification to the
Department of a planned change under standard requirement 5.6 of the permit. Upon notification
of the proposed increase, the Department would evaluate the proposed increased pollutant
discharge amount and receiving water to determine if the discharge change would be within the
wasteload allocation to general permittees discharging to the surface water. If necessary, a variety
of options may be available to insure any proposed increased discharge does not contribute to the
receiving water impairment such as on-site capture of the pollutant of concern, an alternate
discharge location, wastewater reuse opportunities, directing the discharge to a seepage area,
enhanced treatment options so the discharge would meet the water quality standard, etc.
Alternate Permit needed to meet TMDL. If the Department notifies a general permit applicant that
the pollutant of concern discharge would not meet the requirements of a state and USEPA approved
TMDL allocation, the permittee would need to submit an application for a site specific individual
WPDES permit or an alternate general permit that specifies the additional pollutant controls
necessary to comply with the TMDL. The alternate permit may require the permittee to submit a
proposed TMDL implementation plan to the Department. The proposed TMDL implementation plan
shall specify feasible additional management practices, pollution prevention activities, and
wastewater treatment improvements that can be implemented to meet the wasteload allocation.
Note: The section 303(d) list of Wisconsin impaired surface water bodies may be obtained by
contacting the Department or by searching for the section 303(d) list on the Department’s Internet
site. The Department updates the section 303(d) list approximately every two years. The updated
list is effective upon approval by USEPA. The current section 303(d) list can be found here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/.
Recommendations for Discharges to 303(d) Listed Impaired Surface Waters – If a facility discharges
a pollutant of concern to an 303(d) listed impaired water body, the permittee is encouraged to
minimize the pollutant discharge as part of an overall state effort to reduce the pollutant loading to
the water body. Wisconsin water impairments are primarily due to excessive sediment, phosphorus
and mercury levels which are normally very low or non-detectable in wastewater discharges.
Since the 303(d) impaired waters list is updated every 2 years, the permittee is encouraged to check in
the third year of the permit term whether the permittee discharges wastewater to a section 303(d)
listed impaired water body. If so, the permittee is encouraged to evaluate whether additional control
measures and practices could be used to voluntarily minimize, with the goal of elimination, the
discharge of pollutant(s) of concern that contribute to the impairment of the water body. The permittee
should keep a record of the amount of pollutant discharge reduction that has been voluntarily achieved.
The exact amount of pollutant reduction needed will be legally established in the State and Federal
Approved Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) allocation established for the discharge.
4.3 Finding Information About Approved TMDLs
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 17 of 52
There are four ways to determine if a TMDL has been approved for a particular waterbody:
DNR web site
WATERS (Water Assessment, Tracking & Electronic Reporting System)
WT Webviewer (Intranet Surface Water Data Viewer)
EPA’s Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS) web site.
Instructions on how to access TMDL information using these sources are included in Appendix A.
WLAs from approved TMDLs can be obtained by downloading the TMDL reports from the DNR web site,
WATERS, or USEPA’s Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS) web site.
Instructions on how to access WLAs using these data sources are included in Appendix A.
4.4 Finding Information About Impaired Waters
Impaired waters information may be accessed in three ways:
DNR web site
WATERS (Water Assessment, Tracking & Electronic Reporting System)
WT Webviewer (Intranet Surface Water Data Viewer)
Instructions on how to access impaired waters information using these sources are given in Appendix B.
4.5 Finding Information About Implementation of a TMDL
Information pertaining to TMDL implementation may appear in any of 4 locations:
The TMDL itself,
NR 217.16 for phosphorus
The amended AWQMP, or
The implementation guidance.
Generally, TMDL implementation information will be organized as follows:
Those issues which require USEPA approval will appear in the TMDL. (Refer to p. 11 for a list of items
that USEPA reviews.)
Additional implementation detail may be included in the amended AWQMP when implementation
affects multiple WPDES permits.
Guidance on implementation issues where the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions and
science will be needed should be established in a DNR guidance document (such as this document).
4.6 Expression of TMDL-derived Effluent Limits in WPDES Permits
In general, wasteload allocations (WLAs) specified in approved TMDLs are to be expressed in WPDES
permits as water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) [40 CFR 122.44 (d)(1)(vii)(B) and s. 283.31(3)(d),
Wis. Stats.]. Limit calculators should include applicable TMDL-derived WQBELs in their recommendation
memos for WPDES permit issuance and facility planning. In cases where local conditions are not
adequately addressed by a TMDL-derived WQBEL, more stringent limitations based on other WQBEL
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 18 of 52
procedures, such as those for phosphorus in NR 217.13, Wis. Adm. Code, may be included in the permit
(see Section 4.7 for more information).
Permit limits must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL, but need not be
identical to TMDL WLAs [40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B)]. Typically, TMDL WLAs may not be used directly as
permit limits for the reasons explained below.
Section 40 CFR 122.45 (d) specifies that unless impracticable, permit effluent limits must be expressed
as weekly and monthly averages for publicly owned treatment works and as daily maximums and
monthly averages for all other continuous discharges. A continuous discharge is a discharge which
occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility, except for infrequent
shutdowns for maintenance, process changes, or other similar activities (40 CFR 122.2). Expression of
TMDL-derived effluent limits for non-continuous discharges are discussed at the end of this section (see
page 31).
For continuous discharges, unless determined to be impracticable, permit limits derived from TMDL
WLAs need to be expressed as specified by 40 CFR 122.45 (d). Justifications of impracticability may be
made case-by-case and included in the permit’s fact sheet, or may be made for a category of discharges.
As an example of the latter, the Department has demonstrated the impracticability of expressing
WQBELs for total phosphorus (TP) as specified by 40 CFR 122.45 (d). The following table is taken from
the phosphorus limit impracticability demonstration and indicates how WQBELs for TP shall be
expressed in WPDES permits, according to that demonstration.
Table 1. Expression of WQBELs for Total Phosphorus in WPDES Permits
Total
Phosphorus
WQBEL
Rivers and streams, and impoundments,
lakes and reservoirs with average water
residence times of less than one year
Impoundments, lakes and reservoirs
with average water residence times of
greater than or equal to one year
Greater than 0.3
mg/L
Express WQBELs as a monthly average Express WQBELs as a monthly average
Less than or
equal to 0.3 mg/L
With the exceptions addressed below1,2,
express WQBELs as a six-month average
(May 1 – Oct 31 and Nov 1 –April 30) and a
monthly average limit of 3 times the
calculated concentration limit in ss. NR
217.13 and NR 217.14.
With the exceptions addressed below1,2,
express WQBELs as a six-month average
(May 1 – Oct 31 and Nov 1 –April 30) or as
an annual average, and a monthly average
limit of 3 times the calculated concentration
limit in ss. NR 217.13 and NR 217.14
1 Atypical or uncommon situations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. These include discharges to small inland lakes
with water residence times of less than one year where it is possible that a six month averaging period may not be
appropriate and a monthly average limit calculated under ss. NR 217.13 and NR 217.14 may instead be necessary.
2 For approved TMDLs, the expression of limits must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL, but
not greater than the periods expressed above.
Different TMDLs may express WLAs for point sources differently. For example, in addition to the
required daily loads, the Lower Fox River and Red Cedar TMDLs include WLAs expressed as annual loads,
while the Rock River TMDL includes WLAs expressed as monthly loads. The St. Croix TMDL WLAs include
a combination of individual and aggregate WLAs. These TMDLs are used below as examples of how staff
may derive permit effluent limits from WLAs. Other TMDLs which have WLAs expressed as either annual
or monthly loads can follow the relevant example for converting WLAs into permit limits.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 19 of 52
There may be methods other than those described in this guidance that are more appropriate for use in
specific situations when deriving effluent limits based on TMDL WLAs. If staff decide that other methods
are more appropriate, they should contact the Point Source TMDL Implementation Coordinator (Kari
Fleming: kari.fleming@wisconsin.gov), so that these alternate approaches can be documented for future
reference and considered during updates to this guidance document. Decisions that are made contrary
to the guidance suggested here should also be clearly documented in WQBEL memos and/or permit fact
sheets so others can tell why decisions were made.
4.6.1 Lower Fox River TMDL
The Lower Fox River (LFR) TMDL expresses TP and total suspended solids (TSS) WLAs as maximum
annual loads (pounds per year) and maximum daily loads (pounds per day). The daily WLA for a point
source equals the annual WLA divided by the number of days in the year. The daily WLA is actually an
annual average. Since the derivation of daily WLAs from annual WLAs does not take effluent and
monitoring variability into consideration, effluent limits set equal to annual and daily WLAs, when the
latter is expressed as a daily maximum, are not consistent. That is, if the daily WLA is expressed as a
daily maximum effluent limit, the permittee would have to maintain an annual effluent load two to
three times less than (more restrictive than) the annual WLA, which is inconsistent with the assumptions
and requirements of the TMDL. Therefore, maximum daily TP and TSS WLAs from the Lower Fox River
TMDL should not be used directly as permit effluent limits. Neither should maximum annual TP and TSS
WLAs from the LFR TMDL be used directly as permit effluent limits, since these limits would be
inconsistent with 40 CFR 122.45 (d) and the phosphorus limit impracticability demonstration as
discussed above.
Total Phosphorus Limits
For TP, the impracticability demonstration specifies monthly average permit effluent limits when WLAs
equate to a TP effluent concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L, and six-month average limits and monthly
average limits equal to 3 times the six-month average limits when WLAs equate to a TP effluent
concentration equal to or less than 0.3 mg/L. Staff should use the effluent flow specified by s. NR 217.13
(1)(c), Wis. Adm. Code, and the annual WLA for a point source to determine the equivalent effluent
concentration. To calculate monthly average and six-month average permit limits, it is recommended
that the limit calculator convert the annual WLA to an annual average and multiply the annual average
by the multipliers specified in Table 2 on page 22 and the footnotes and information following the table.
For example, Green Bay Metropolitan’s Green Bay Facility has an annual average design flow of 49.2
MGD and a maximum annual WLA of 17,349 pounds TP per year.
TP Equivalent Effluent Concentration = 17,349 lbs/yr ÷ (365 days/yr * 49.2 MGD * 8.34) = 0.12 mg/L
Since the equivalent effluent concentration is less than 0.3 mg/L, a six-month average and monthly
average permit limit should be derived from the annual WLA. To do so, divide the annual WLA by 365
days per year and multiply the result by 1.11.
TP 6-Month Average Permit Limit = (17,349 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 1.11 = 52.8 lbs/day
The six-month average effluent limit should be expressed in pounds per day and applied to the periods
of May 1 through October 31 and November 1 through April 30. A monthly average effluent limit of
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 20 of 52
three times the six-month average effluent limit, or 158 pounds TP per day, should accompany the six-
month average effluent limit in the permit.
The multiplier of 1.11 used above was taken from Table 2 on page 22. The effluent monitoring
frequency that will be required when the TMDL-derived permit limit is in effect should be used to select
the multiplier. A monitoring frequency for TP of daily is specified in the Green Bay Facility’s current
WPDES permit and is not anticipated to change when the TMDL-derived TP permit limit becomes
effective. Therefore, daily monitoring is used to select the multiplier.
To derive permit limits from TMDL WLAs, an estimate of the coefficient of variation (CV) for the
regulated parameter once the permittee complies with the limit is necessary. If information on the
future effluent variability is available, staff should base the CV on that information. For example, when
the variability of measurements of the regulated parameter in the effluent is not likely to change once
the permittee complies with the limit, current effluent data may be used to estimate the CV. Lacking
information on future effluent variability, the default CV of 0.6 should be used. It is recommended that
the following formula be used to calculate the CV for each effluent parameter:
CV = standard deviation of mass effluent data ÷ mean of mass effluent data
Staff should use only those effluent sample results greater than the limit of detection when calculating
the CV. If effluent monitoring has been performed for less than one year or there are fewer than 24
effluent sample results greater than the limit of detection, assume a CV of 0.6.
To calculate permit limits using a CV other than 0.6, it is recommended that staff use the equations
provided in Table 5-2 of USEPA’s TSD. An Excel spreadsheet is also available to derive multipliers for CVs
other than 0.6.
As noted above, the CV anticipated to be present when the TMDL-derived TP permit limit is being met
should be used to select the multiplier. The CV for the Green Bay Facility’s TP discharge currently equals
approximately 0.8, but should not be used to select the multiplier. The Department anticipates that the
addition of wastewater treatment to achieve the TMDL-derived permit limit will reduce effluent
variability with respect to TP. While the Department anticipates that the CV will decrease, it does not
have a good estimate of the future CV and, therefore, the default CV of 0.6 is used to select the
multiplier. Note that the multiplier from Table 2 for a 6-month average limit with daily monitoring
equals 1.11, as used in the above example.
For a second example, the Sherwood Wastewater Treatment Facility has an annual average design flow
of 0.259 MGD and a maximum annual WLA of 295 pounds TP per year.
TP Equivalent Effluent Concentration = 295 lbs/yr ÷ (365 days/yr *0.259 MGD *8.34) = 0.37 mg/L
Since the equivalent effluent concentration is greater than 0.3 mg/L, the WLA should be expressed as a
monthly average effluent limit as specified in the phosphorus impracticability demonstration. To
calculate a monthly average effluent limit for TP, first divide the annual WLA by 365 days per year and
then multiply the result by 1.59. Express the monthly average limit in pounds per day.
TP Monthly Average Permit Limit = (295 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 1.59 = 1.29 lbs/day
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 21 of 52
The multiplier of 1.59 was taken from the Table 2 on page 22. The CV of the Sherwood Wastewater
Treatment Facility’s mass discharge of TP is approximately 1.0, but is anticipated to decrease with the
addition of wastewater treatment necessary to meet the TMDL-derived permit limit. Lacking a better
estimate of the future CV, the default CV of 0.6 is used to select the multiplier.
A TP monitoring frequency of twice weekly is specified in the Sherwood Wastewater Treatment Facility’s
current WPDES permit and is not anticipated to change when the TP permit limit becomes effective.
Therefore, twice weekly monitoring is used to select the multiplier to calculate the monthly average
permit limit.
Total Suspended Solids Limits
Since the Department has not demonstrated that the application of 40 CFR 122.45 (d) is impracticable
with respect to TSS permit effluent limits, limits for TSS should be expressed in permits for continuous
discharges as weekly and monthly averages for publicly owned treatment works and as daily maximums
and monthly averages for all other point sources.
To calculate monthly average, weekly average, and daily maximum TSS limits for dischargers covered by
the LFR TMDL, staff should first divide the maximum annual WLA by 365 days per year and then multiply
the result by the multiplier from the Table 2, on page 22. Express all limits in pounds per day.
For example, the Green Bay Metropolitan’s Green Bay Facility has an annual WLA of 354,861 pounds TSS
per year, a CV for the mass discharge of TSS equal to 0.5, and a permit-required monitoring frequency of
daily for TSS.
TSS Monthly Average Permit Limit = (354,861 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 1.23 = 1,196 lbs/day
TSS Weekly Average Permit Limit = (354,861 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 1.52 = 1,478 lbs/day
The current monitoring frequency and CV were used to select the multipliers used above. The daily
monitoring frequency is not likely to change once the TMDL-derived permit limits are effective. Similarly,
the current CV of 0.5 is not likely to increase when treatment is provided to reduce the discharge of
either TP or TSS. Lacking a better estimate of the CV once the TMDL-derived permit limits are in effect,
the current value is used. The equations provided in Table 5-2 of USEPA’s TSD were used to calculate the
multipliers. Note that should the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District demonstrate that the CV
will change when additional treatment for either TP or TSS is provided, TSS limits may be recalculated.
For a second example, the Georgia-Pacific, Day Street Mill has an annual WLA of 105,698 pounds TSS per
year, a CV for the mass discharge of TSS equal to 0.6, and a permit-required monitoring frequency for
TSS of five times per week.
TSS Monthly Average Permit Limit = (105,698 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 1.35 = 391 lbs/day
TSS daily Maximum Permit Limit = (105,698 lbs/yr ÷ 365 days/yr) * 3.11 = 901 lbs/day
The current monitoring frequency and CV were used to derive the multipliers used above. While a
monitoring frequency of daily should be considered when the permit is reissued, the monitoring
frequency is not changed for this example. The current CV of 0.6 equals the default CV of 0.6. An
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 22 of 52
estimate of the CV once TMDL-derived permit limits are in effect is not available. The multipliers are
taken from Table 2, on page 22.
The above guidance for expressing LFR TMDL WLAs as permit limits is based on USEPA’s statistical
method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). Other methods may be
used, if deemed appropriate by the Department. Staff should contact the Point Source TMDL
Implementation Coordinator (Kari Fleming: kari.fleming@wisconsin.gov) when discussing other
approaches.
USEPA’s statistical method for permit limit derivation is summarized below in a table of WLA multipliers.
Select the appropriate multiplier from the following table using the effluent monitoring frequency for
the regulated pollutant that will be in effect once the permit limit for the pollutant becomes effective.
Table 2. Multipliers for Permit Effluent Limits Derived from Annual WLAs Using a
Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 0.6
Effluent Monitoring
Frequency
6-Month
Average
Permit Limits
Monthly
Average
Permit Limits
Weekly
Average
Permit Limits
Daily
Maximum
Permit Limits
Daily 1.11 1.28 1.64 3.11
6 Times per Week 1.12 1.32 1.70 3.11
5 Times per Week 1.13 1.35 1.78 3.11
4 Times per Week 1.14 1.40 1.90 3.11
3 Times per Week 1.17 1.47 2.07 3.11
Twice per Week 1.21 1.59 2.37 3.11
Weekly or Less 1.30 1.90 3.11 3.11
Assumptions used in the derivation of the multipliers in the above table include use of the log-normal
distribution, equating the long-term average equal to the maximum annual WLA divided by the number
of days in the year, a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.6, and a 99th percentile level (0.01 probability
basis). For the Lower Fox TMDL, annual WLAs are calculated from a five-year average of effluent flow for
each point source (2003 through 2007), which makes the annual WLA divided by the number of days in a
year a good estimate of the long-term average.
EPA’s TSD recommends that permit limits be derived using an effluent monitoring frequency of no less
than four times per month. Consequently, the above table does not provide multipliers for monitoring
frequencies less than weekly. If the permit-required monitoring frequency once the TMDL-derived
permit limit is in effect is less than weekly, a multiplier for weekly monitoring should be used to derive
the permit limit.
Reducing the monitoring frequency to produce a less restrictive permit effluent limit is discouraged.
Monitoring should not be reduced to a frequency less than that specified in the Department’s February
2003 draft guidance (W:\TMDL_Implementation\Guidance\WPDES_Guidance\Monitoring Freq.pdf).
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 23 of 52
Apply the 2003 guidance to both municipal and industrial permits. USEPA’s guidance for reducing
monitoring frequencies may be used to determine whether a monitoring frequency reduction is
appropriate (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/upload/Interim-
Guidance-for-Performance-Based-Reductions-of-NPDES-Permit-Monitoring-Frequencies.pdf), but
reductions should remain within Department guidance.
Although LFR TMDL limits for TSS aren’t being expressed as annual limits in the permits, it is
recommended that permits require permittees to calculate and report rolling 12-month sums of total
monthly loads for TP and TSS. Total monthly loads should be calculated by multiplying the monthly
average discharge concentration (mg/L) by the total flow for the month (MG/month) and by the
conversion factor of 8.34. Sum the total monthly loads from the most recent twelve months. Rolling 12-
month sums may be compared directly to the annual WLA.
During each permit reissuance process subsequent to the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit
limit, limit calculators should evaluate whether or not the annual WLA is being achieved. For example,
review the rolling 12-month sums reported by the permittee and compare them to the annual WLA. If
the annual WLA is not being met, the limits calculator should consider recalculating permit limits in
order to make them more restrictive. Calculating a coefficient of variation from effluent data collected
following the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit limit, increasing the monitoring frequency, or
using a different probability basis should be considered.
4.6.2 Rock River TMDL
The Rock River TMDL (RR TMDL) expresses TP and TSS WLAs as maximum monthly loads in pounds per
month for each calendar month and maximum daily loads in pounds per day for each calendar month.
The phosphorus limit impracticability demonstration suggests that permit effluent limits for TP should
be expressed as monthly average effluent limits when WLAs equate to a TP effluent concentration
greater than 0.3 mg/L, and as 6-month average limits and monthly average limits equal to 3 times the 6-
month average limits when WLAs equate to a TP effluent concentration equal to or less than 0.3 mg/L.
However, the agreement also recommends that the expression of limits be consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of the TMDL. Since the RR TMDL expresses TP WLAs as a monthly load
for each month of the year, monthly phosphorus limits should be included in permits. Converting
monthly WLAs to six-month average permit limits is inconsistent with the assumptions and
requirements of the TMDL. Therefore, TP permit limits derived from RR TMDL WLAs for point sources
should be expressed only as monthly average limits.
To convert a maximum monthly WLA for phosphorus to a monthly average permit limit, simply divide
the WLA by the number of days in the month and express the resulting limit in units of pounds per day.
Repeat the calculation for each month of the year since the RR TMDL provides a different WLA for each
month.
For example, the August TP WLA for the Edgerton Wastewater Treatment equals 76.27 pounds per
month. The August permit limit is calculated below. Remember that monthly average permit limits must
be calculated for all twelve months.
TP Monthly Average Permit Limit for August = (76.27 lbs/Aug. ÷ 31 days/Aug.) = 2.46 lbs/day
No exceptions to the above procedures are recommended when the permit contains concentration
limits for TP based on s. NR 217.13 and mass limits for TP based on RR TMDL WLAs. Concentration limits
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 24 of 52
must comply with ch. NR 217 and the phosphorus limit impracticability demonstration. Mass limits from
the TMDL should follow the above guidance.
Since the Department has not demonstrated that weekly and monthly average limits are impracticable
with respect to TSS, effluent limits for TSS should be expressed in permits as weekly and monthly
averages for publicly owned treatment works and as daily maximums and monthly averages for all other
point sources.
To derive a monthly average TSS permit limit from a monthly WLA, divide the TSS WLA by the number of
days in the month and multiply the result by 2,000 pounds per ton to convert the WLA from tons per
day to pounds per day. Express the monthly average effluent limit in units of pounds per day. Repeat the
calculation for each month of the year since the Rock River TMDL provides a different WLA for each
month.
When a daily maximum TSS effluent limit is necessary, the daily WLA from the RR TMDL is used as the
permit limit, after converting from tons per day to pounds per day. An attempt was made in the RR
TMDL to make monthly and daily WLAs consistent with respect to effluent and monitoring variability
using USEPA’s statistical method. Therefore, meeting either limit should result in compliance with the
other, and neither limit is more restrictive than the other.
When a weekly average permit effluent limit is required for TSS, the limit is derived from the RR TMDL
monthly WLA and the appropriate multiplier from Table 3, on page 25. For example, the January TSS
WLA for the Arlington Wastewater Treatment Facility equals 0.29 tons. Arlington’s permit requires TSS
monitoring twice weekly and the current coefficient of variation (CV) of Arlington’s mass discharge of
TSS is approximately 1.2. The January monthly average permit limit is calculated below.
TSS Monthly Average Permit Limit for January =
(0.29 tons/Jan. * 2,000 lbs/ton) ÷ 31 days/Jan. = 19 lbs/day
To derive a weekly average TSS permit limit, multiply the monthly average TSS effluent limit as
calculated above by 1.48, the multiplier specified by Table 3, on page 25, for twice weekly monitoring,
and express the limit in units of pounds per day. Repeat the calculation for each month of the year.
For example, using Arlington’s January TSS monthly average permit limit of 19 lbs/day as calculated
above, the weekly average permit limit for January is calculated below.
TSS Weekly Average Permit Limit for January = 19 lbs/day * 1.48 = 28 lbs/day
The effluent monitoring frequency that will be required when the TMDL-derived TSS permit limit is in
effect should be used to select the multiplier. While a more frequent monitoring frequency should be
considered when the permit is reissued with TMDL-derived TSS limits, the monitoring frequency is not
changed for this example. That is, the multiplier in the above calculation was selected using a
monitoring frequency of twice weekly.
The CV anticipated to be present when the TMDL-derived TSS permit limit is being met should be used
to select the multiplier. Arlington’s current CV of 1.2 should not be used to select the multiplier. The
Department anticipates that the addition of treatment to achieve the TMDL-derived permit limit for TP
or TSS will reduce effluent variability with respect to TSS. While the Department anticipates that the CV
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 25 of 52
for TSS will decrease, it does not have a good estimate of the future CV and, therefore, the default CV of
0.6 is used to select the multiplier.
For a second example, the May TSS WLA for Grande Cheese in Brownsville equals 0.97 tons per month.
Grande’s current permit requires TSS monitoring twice per week. Grande’s monthly average and daily
maximum TSS permit limits for May are calculated below.
TSS Monthly Average Permit Limit for May =
(0.97 tons/May. * 2,000 lbs/ton) ÷ 31 days/May = 63 lbs/day
TSS Daily Maximum Permit Limit for May =
0.07 tons/day * 2,000 lbs/ton = 140 lbs/day
EPA’s statistical method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) should be
used to convert RR TMDL WLAs for TSS to weekly average permit limits. In this guidance, USEPA’s
statistical method for permit limit derivation from monthly WLAs is summarized in the following table of
multipliers. Select the appropriate multiplier from the following table using the effluent monitoring
frequency for TSS that will be in effect once the TMDL-derived TSS permit limit becomes effective. A
default CV of 0.6 was used to construct the table since the TSS CV that will occur during compliance with
TMDL-derived TSS permit limits will not be known in most cases. Multiply the TMDL-derived monthly
average limit times the multiplier from the table to calculate week average and daily maximum permit
limits.
Table 3. Multipliers for Permit Effluent Limits
Derived from Monthly WLAs Using a Coefficient
of Variation (CV) of 0.6
Effluent Monitoring
Frequency
Weekly Average Permit
Limits
Daily 1.28
6 Times per Week 1.29
5 Times per Week 1.32
4 Times per Week 1.36
3 Times per Week 1.41
Twice per Week 1.48
Weekly or Less 1.64
Assumptions used in the derivation of the multipliers in the above table include use of the log-normal
distribution, a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.6, and a 99th percentile level (0.01 probability basis).
To derive weekly TSS permit limits from TMDL monthly WLAs, an estimate of the CV for the regulated
parameter or pollutant once the permittee complies with the limit is necessary. If information on future
effluent variability is available, staff should base the CV on that information. For example, if the
variability of measurements of the regulated parameter or pollutant in the effluent is not likely to
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 26 of 52
change once the permittee complies with the limit, current effluent data may be used to estimate the
CV. Lacking information on future effluent variability, the default CV of 0.6 should be used. Use the
following formula to calculate the CV:
CV = standard deviation of mass effluent data ÷ mean of mass effluent data
Staff should use only those effluent sample results greater than the limit of detection when calculating
the CV. If effluent monitoring has been performed for less than one year or there are fewer than 24
effluent sample results greater than the limit of detection, assume a CV of 0.6.
To calculate multipliers using a CV other than 0.6, it is recommended that staff use the equations
provided in Table 5-3 of USEPA’s TSD. An Excel spreadsheet is also available to perform the calculations.
In the TSD,USEPA recommends that permit limits should be derived using an effluent monitoring
frequency of no less than four times per month. Consequently, the above table does not provide
multipliers for monitoring frequencies less than weekly.
Reducing the monitoring frequency to produce a less restrictive permit effluent limit is discouraged.
Monitoring should not be reduced to a frequency less than that specified in the DNR’s February 2003
draft guidance (W:\TMDL_Implementation\Guidance\WPDES_Guidance\Monitoring Freq.pdf). Apply
the 2003 guidance to both municipal and industrial permits. USEPA’s guidance for reducing monitoring
frequencies may be used to determine whether a monitoring frequency reduction is appropriate
(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/upload/Interim-Guidance-for-
Performance-Based-Reductions-of-NPDES-Permit-Monitoring-Frequencies.pdf), but reductions should
remain within Department guidance.
The above guidance for expressing RR TMDL WLAs as permit limits is based on USEPA’s statistical
method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). Other methods may be
used, if deemed appropriate by the Department. Staff should contact the Point Source TMDL
Implementation Coordinator (Kari Fleming: kari.fleming@wisconsin.gov) when discussing other
approaches. Decisions that are made contrary to the guidance suggested here should also be clearly
documented in WQBEL memos and/or permit fact sheets so others can tell why decisions were made.
4.6.3 Lake St. Croix TMDL
The Lake St. Croix TMDL was prepared in partnership with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St.
Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. USEPA
approved the TMDL on August 8, 2012. A copy of the final TMDL report is available at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18417 .
The Lake St. Croix TMDL establishes TP WLAs to meet an in-lake water quality standard of 40 µg/L. The
WLAs do not address WQS for tributaries to Lake St. Croix, however. Therefore, in addition to
implementing the TMDL, limit calculators should evaluate the need for TP WQBELs to protect the
immediate receiving water for discharges to a tributary of Lake St. Croix.
The Lake St. Croix TMDL establishes WLAs for 12 point sources in Wisconsin (see Table 4 on page 28) and
an aggregate loading cap for 12 additional Wisconsin point sources (see Table 5 on page 28). The TMDL
states that point sources covered by the aggregate loading cap will be deemed as meeting the aggregate
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 27 of 52
WLA as long as the sum of effluent loads from all 12 point sources remains under the aggregate load
cap. According to the TMDL’s implementation recommendations, when the total loading from all 12
point sources equals or exceeds 85 percent of the aggregate loading cap, permittees exceeding their
individual share of the aggregate loading cap should receive individual WLAs.
Therefore, individual WLAs will not be included initially in the permits of those facilities covered by the
TMDL’s aggregate loading cap. However, the first permit reissuance after August 8, 2012 should contain
requirements for monitoring effluent TP and calculating and reporting monthly TP loads and 12-month
rolling sums of monthly TP loads. Monthly loads are calculated using the monthly average TP
concentration and the total flow for the month.
Reissued permits for those facilities covered by the TMDL’s aggregate loading cap should also include
the following reopener clause, which uses the Village of Clayton as an example:
The Village of Clayton is included in a group of permitted facilities subject to an aggregate
phosphorus wasteload allocation of 6932 pounds per year (3151 kg/year) under the Lake St.
Croix Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report. Compliance with the wasteload allocation is
required upon reissuance. The Village will be considered in compliance with its Lake St. Croix
TMDL allocation if the phosphorus discharged from the facility is less than the permittee’s
individual allocation (528 pounds per year (240 kg/year)) OR the total annual loading from all
permittees in the aggregate category is less than the aggregate allocation. For example, if the
Village exceeds its individual allocation but the aggregate allocation is not exceeded, the Village
is still in compliance with this permit.
Total Monthly Discharge: = monthly average concentration (mg/L) x total flow for the month
(MG/month) x 8.34.
Total Annual Discharge = sum of total monthly discharges for the calendar year.
The Department will total 12-month rolling sums from all 12 facilities covered by the aggregate loading
cap. Should the total of 12-month sums exceed 5,904 lbs (i.e., 85 percent of 3,151 kg/yr from Table 5 on
page 28), the Department will modify or reissue the permits of those permittees exceeding their
individual share of the aggregate loading cap to include TMDL-derived permit limits. (See the guidance
below for converting WLAs to permit limits.) After permit modification or reissuance to include
individual WLAs, the Department will reduce the aggregate loading cap by an amount equal to the sum
of WLAs included in the modified or reissued permits, and continue to track the total of 12-month
rolling sums from the remaining permittees covered by the aggregate loading cap.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 28 of 52
Table 4. Lake St. Croix TMDL WLAs for Point Sources
Facility
Permit
Number
Concentration
Assumption
(mg/L)
Design
Flow
(MGD)
WLA
(kg/yr)
WLA
(lbs/day)
Hudson WWTF 0024279 0.6 3.25 2,694 16.3
River Falls WWTP 0029394 0.6 3.17 2,628 15.9
New Richmond WWTF 0021245 0.6 1.73 1,434 8.7
Osceola, Village of 0025020 1.0 0.750 1,036 6.3
Amery, City of 0020125 1.0 0.535 739 4.5
St. Croix Falls, City of 0020796 1.0 0.496 685 4.1
Hammond 0024171 1.0 0.450 622 3.8
Clear Lake, Village of 0023639 1.0 0.404 558 3.4
Grantsburg, Village of 0060429 1.0 0.380 525 3.2
Somerset WWTF 0030252 1.0 0.375 518 3.1
Luck, Village of 0021482 1.0 0.364 503 3.0
Burnett Dairy Cooperative 0039039 1.0 0.250 345 2.1
Table 5. Facilities Eligible for Lake St. Croix TMDL Aggregate Loading Cap
Facility
Permit
Number
Concentration
Assumption
(mg/L)
Design
Flow
(MGD)
WLA
(kg/yr)
WLA
(lbs/day)
Frederic 0029254 3.5 0.185 895 5.4
Star Prairie WWTF 0060984 3.5 0.154 745 4.5
T. Thompson Hatchery 0049191 0.1 2.208 305 1.8
Deer Park WWTF 0025356 3.5 0.051 247 1.5
WI DNR Osceola Fish Hatchery 0004197 0.1 1.77 245 1.5
Clayton, Village of 0036706 2.0 0.087 240 8.7*
Webster, Village of 0028843 2.0 0.085 235 8.5*
Amani Sanitary District 0031861 2.0 0.032 88 3.2*
Advanced Food Products 0039781 0.1 0.401 55 0.3
W DNR St. Croix Falls Hatchery 0004201 0.1 0.344 48 0.3
Lakeside Foods, INC. 0002836 0.1 0.316 44 0.3
Emerald Dairy 0059315 Load estimate 4 0.02
Aggregate Loading Cap 3,151 18.9
*WLAs for these intermittent dischargers are 6 times greater than WLAs for a continuous discharger.
Consequently, the median number of days per year these facilities may discharge TP at a rate equal
to the total daily WLA is 61 days.
The Lake St. Croix TMDL expresses WLAs for TP as maximum annual loads (kilograms per year) and
maximum daily loads (pounds per day), which equal the maximum annual loads divided by the number
of days in the year. Total phosphorus WQBELs for point sources covered by the Lake St. Croix TMDL
should be derived in the same manner as permit limits for point sources covered by the Lower Fox River
TMDL. That is, consistent with the WI/USEPA impracticability demonstration, TP limits should be
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 29 of 52
expressed as a monthly average when WLAs equate to a TP effluent concentration greater than 0.3
mg/L, and as a six-month average and monthly average equal to 3 times the six-month average limit
when WLAs equate to a TP effluent concentration equal to or less than 0.3 mg/L.
To calculate monthly average and six-month average permit limits, multiply the daily WLA from the Lake
St. Croix TMDL by the multipliers specified in Table 2 on page 22 and the footnotes and information
following the table. Compare the concentration assumption for the point source, as provided by the
Lake St. Croix TMDL and presented in Table 4, on page 28, to 0.3 mg/L to determine the appropriate
form of the limits.
For example, Table 4 provides a concentration assumption of 0.6 mg/L and a daily WLA of 16.3 lbs/day
for the Hudson WWTF. Hudson’s current permit requires TP effluent monitoring 5 times per week. The
coefficient of variation (CV) for TP effluent data (lbs/day) collected by Hudson during the period from
January 1, 2009 through July 31, 2012 equals 0.69.
Since the concentration assumption exceeds 0.3 mg/L, only a monthly average permit limit is calculated.
Lacking an estimate of the CV for the period when Hudson complies with the TMDL-derived permit limit,
the default CV of 0.6 is used to select the multiplier. To calculate a monthly average effluent limit for TP,
multiply Hudson’s daily WLA of 16.3 lbs/day by 1.35. (Remember that the daily WLA is the Annual WLA
divided by the number of days in the year.) Express the monthly average limit in pounds per day. That is,
TP Monthly Average Permit Limit = 16.3lbs/day * 1.35 = 22.0 lbs/day
For a second example, assume that the total load for all 12 permittees eligible for the aggregate loading
cap exceeds 5,904 lbs/year and that Star Prairie WWTF’s TP load exceeds the facility’s WLA of 745 kg/yr.
Table 5 (page 28) provides a concentration assumption of 3.5 mg/L and a daily WLA of 4.5 lbs/day. The
current permit requires monthly TP effluent monitoring. The CV for TP effluent data (lbs/day) collected
by Star Prairie during 2010 equals 0.78.
Since the concentration assumption exceeds 0.3 mg/L, only a monthly average permit limit is calculated.
Lacking an estimate of the CV for the period when Star Prairie complies with the TMDL-derived permit
limit, the default CV of 0.6 is used to select the multiplier. To calculate a monthly average effluent limit
for TP, multiply Star Prairie’s daily WLA of 4.5 lbs/day by 1.90. Express the monthly average limit in
pounds per day. That is,
TP Monthly Average Permit Limit = 4.5 lbs/day * 1.90 = 8.55 lbs/day
Since WLAs are expressed as annual loads (kg/yr), permits with TMDL-derived monthly average permit
limits should require the permittee to calculate and report rolling 12-month sums of total monthly loads
for TP. Total monthly loads should be calculated by multiplying the monthly average discharge
concentration (mg/L) by the total flow for the month (MG/month) and by the conversion factor of 8.34.
Sum the total monthly loads from the most recent twelve months. Rolling 12-month sums may be
compared directly to the annual WLA.
During the permit reissuance process subsequent to the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit limit,
limits calculators should evaluate whether or not the annual WLA is being achieved. For example, review
the rolling 12-month sums reported by the permittee. If the annual WLA is not being met, the limits
calculator should consider recalculating permit limits. Calculating a CV from effluent data collected
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 30 of 52
following the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit limit, increasing the monitoring frequency, or
using a probability basis of 95 percent should be considered.
Should TMDL-derived permit limits for any of the three intermittent discharges listed in Table 5 (page
28) become necessary, follow the instructions provided on page 31 for non-continuous discharges.
The above guidance for expressing Lake St. Croix TMDL WLAs as permit limits is based on USEPA’s
statistical method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). Other
methods may be used, if deemed appropriate by the Department. Staff should contact the Point Source
TMDL Implementation Coordinator (Kari Fleming: kari.fleming@wisconsin.gov) when discussing other
approaches. Decisions that are made contrary to the guidance suggested here should also be clearly
documented in WQBEL memos and/or permit fact sheets so others can tell why decisions were made.
4.6.4 Tainter Lake and Lake Menomin (Red Cedar River) TMDL
USEPA approved the Tainter Lake/Lake Menomin TMDL in Sept 2012. The TMDL report is located at:
http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lowerchip/redcedar/pdf/TainterLake_and_LakeMenominPhosphorus_TMDLsJuly12Draft.pdf.
The Tainter Lake and Lake Menomin (TL/LM) TMDL establishes TP WLAs to reduce the loading to the
Lakes by 65 percent. The WLAs do not address water quality standards for tributaries to the Lakes
including the Red Cedar River. Therefore, in addition to implementing the TMDL, limit calculators should
evaluate the need for TP WQBELs to protect immediate receiving waters.
The TL/LM TMDL expresses WLAs for TP as maximum annual loads (pounds per year) and maximum
daily loads (pounds per day), which equal the maximum annual loads divided by the number of days in
the year. Total phosphorus WQBELs for point sources covered by the TL/LM TMDL should be derived in
the same manner as permit limits for point sources covered by the Lower Fox River TMDL. That is,
consistent with the WI/USEPA impracticability demonstration, TP limits should be expressed as a
monthly average since the TL/LM TMDL WLAs are derived on an effluent concentration of 1 mg/L or
greater.
To calculate monthly average permit limits, multiply the daily WLA from the TL/LM TMDL by the
multipliers specified in Table 2 on page 22 and the footnotes and information following the table
(Remember that the daily WLA equals the annual WLA divided by the number of days in the year.)
For example, the daily WLA for the Boyceville WWTF equals 1.83 lbs/day. Boyceville’s current permit
requires weekly TP effluent monitoring. The CV for TP effluent data (lbs/day) collected by Boyceville
during the period from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2012 equals 0.45.
On the assumption that Boyceville is currently complying with the TMDL-derived permit effluent limit,
the current CV is used to select the multiplier. The monthly average effluent limit for TP equals
Boyceville’s daily WLA of 1.83 lbs/day multiplied by 1.64. This multiplier was derived using the
spreadsheet for calculating multipliers with CV’s other than 0.6. Express the monthly average limit in
pounds per day. That is,
TP Monthly Average Permit Limit in lbs/day = 1.83lbs/day * 1.64 = 3.00 lbs/day
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 31 of 52
Since the 4-day P99 of Boyceville’s TP discharge equals 1.72 lbs/day, which is less than the TMDL-derived
limit of 3.00 lbs/day, the assumption that Boyceville is complying with the WLA-derive effluent limit is
correct and use of a CV of 0.45 is appropriate.
Since WLAs are expressed as annual loads (lbs/yr), permits should require permittees to calculate and
report rolling 12-month sums of total monthly loads for TP. Total monthly loads should be calculated by
multiplying the monthly average discharge concentration (mg/L) by the total flow for the month
(MG/month) and by the conversion factor of 8.34. Sum the total monthly loads from the most recent
twelve months. Rolling 12-month sums may be compared directly to the annual WLA.
During the permit reissuance process subsequent to the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit limit,
limits calculators should evaluate whether or not the annual WLA is being achieved. For example, review
the rolling 12-month sums reported by the permittee. If the annual WLA is not being met, the limits
calculator should consider recalculating permit limits. Calculating a CV from effluent data collected
following the effective date of the TMDL-derived permit limit, increasing the monitoring frequency, or
using a probability basis of 95 percent should be considered.
The above guidance for expressing TL/LM TMDL WLAs as permit limits is based on USEPA’s statistical
method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). Other methods may be
used, if deemed appropriate by the Department. Staff should contact the Point Source TMDL
Implementation Coordinator (Kari Fleming: kari.fleming@wisconsin.gov) when discussing other
approaches. Decisions that are made contrary to the guidance suggested here should also be clearly
documented in WQBEL memos and/or permit fact sheets so others can tell why decisions were made.
4.6.5 Non-continuous Discharges
Non-continuous discharges are discharges which do not meet the definition of a continuous discharge
expressed above on page 18. Methods for converting TMDL WLAs to permit effluent limits for non-
continuous discharges should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In practice the most common
types of non-continuous discharges that will be encountered fall into these basic categories:
1. Discharges from stabilization ponds and cannery operations which routinely discharge during a
limited period of the year.
2. Discharges from industries where interrupted production on weekends results routinely in no
discharge for one or two days per week.
3. Discharges from municipal lagoon systems where effluent is held for short periods of time
(usually 1-2 months) to avoid non-compliance with BOD5 or NH3 limitations.
4. Discharges where market forces dictate whether production occurs (e.g. dairies may choose to
landspread whey rather than processing it further).
In all cases the most practical manner of expressing TMDL based limits would be in terms of total mass
per reporting period which is consistent with 40 CFR 122.45 (e). For those TMDLs where the WLAs are
given on a monthly basis, those would be directly translated into the permit as monthly total mass
limits.
For those TMDLs where the WLAs are given on an annual basis, there should be flexibility in determining
whether it is practical to have monthly limits in addition to annual limits. For example, facilities where
discharge does not occur on weekends but occurs routinely throughout the year, the statistical methods
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 32 of 52
outlined earlier for continuous discharges could be used to translate the annual WLA into a monthly
limit. This method could also be considered for seasonal discharges such as can cooling waters where
once seasonal production starts, effluent flow rates are continuous until shutdown.
For controlled discharges and other discharges where there is no valid statistical basis for transforming
annual WLAs into shorter term limits, limits should be expressed as total annual discharge. Using shorter
term limits would have the effect of unduly limiting operational flexibility, and since TMDLs are required
to be protective of critical conditions, an annual discharge limit would be consistent with the TMDL and
protective of water quality. In the case of phosphorus, if there are local conditions that are not
adequately addressed with the WLA-based limit, more stringent limitations based on the procedures in
NR 217.13 should be included in the permit.
4.7 Relationship of TMDL-derived Limits, other WQBELs, and Technology-based
Effluent Limits
Total maximum daily load (TMDL)-derived effluent limits, usually expressed as a mass, must be included
in a WPDES permit whenever a facility is given a wasteload allocation in a USEPA approved TMDL, in
order to be consistent with the goals of that TMDL. In addition to TMDL-derived mass limits, other
WQBELs and/or technology-based limits (TBELs), usually expressed as a concentration, may also need to
be included in WPDES permits to ensure protection of local and downstream water quality, and to
conform to regulatory requirements for specific pollutants.
If the same parameter is regulated by a TMDL-derived limit and a TBEL, both limits should be included in
the permit. When a TMDL-derived limit is given, the permittee must continue to comply with applicable
TBELs even if the permittee acquires additional load or wasteload allocation through trades. Conversely,
the permittee must also continue to comply with applicable TMDL-derived limits should the TBEL
increase due to increased production or expansion of the facility (see ch. NR 217.12 for language that
pertains to phosphorus effluent limits expressed as concentrations).
A TMDL-derived limit may replace another WQBEL in a permit. A TMDL-derived limit replaces the non-
TMDL WQBEL in the permit if the same parameter is regulated by both limits and the TMDL-derived
limit is more restrictive than the non-TMDL WQBEL. If the TMDL-derived WQBEL is less restrictive than
the non-TMDL WQBEL already in effect, the less restrictive TMDL-derived limit may replace the non-
TMDL WQBEL if the TMDL-derived WQBEL is for the immediate receiving water and then only after
antidegradation requirements are met. Specific administrative rule provisions must also be in place to
allow this replacement. For example, s. NR 217.16, Wis. Adm. Code, allows the WLA-derived limit to
replace the non-TMDL WQBEL under certain circumstances, as shown in Figure 1 below and explained in
the next section.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 33 of 52
Figure 1. Determining Which Phosphorus Limits Are Needed
Approved
TMDL in
place?
Include WLA-
derived mass
limit(s) in
permit
Already have a
TBEL in
permit?
Calculate
WQBEL under
217.13 & do
RP analysis
Include
WQBEL
concentration
& mass limit, if
required (see
217.14)
Is WQBEL
more stringent
than TBEL?
(see 217.12)
Calculate
WQBEL under
217.13
Is there RP?
(see 217.15)
No limit
needed
Include
WQBEL
concentration
& mass limit, if
required (see
217.14)
Include TBEL
concentration &
mass limit, if required
(see 217.14(1)&(3)
& 217.12(2))
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
NoYes
Is WLA-derived limit
protective of local &
downstream waters?
(See Section 4.8
& NR 217.16)
No
Include 217.13
concentration
& WLA-derived
mass limit
Yes
Include TBEL
concentration
& WLA-derived
mass limit
Is the 217.13
concentration
limit > TBEL?
Do not include
TBEL
No
Include TBEL Yes
4.8 Phosphorus: Comparing NR 217.13 limits to TMDL-based phosphorus limits
There are three types of phosphorus limits that can be included in WPDES permits: phosphorus TBELs
(NR 217 Subchapter II, Wis. Adm. Code), phosphorus WQBELs (s. NR 217.13, Wis. Adm. Code), and
TMDL-derived phosphorus WQBELs. Some or all of these phosphorus limits may need to be included in
WPDES permits upon reissuance. The purpose of this guidance is to help staff determine which
phosphorus limits, if any, need to be included in WPDES permits.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 34 of 52
Including a TBEL in addition to the TMDL-derived WQBEL
A phosphorus TBEL must be included in a WPDES permit when a TBEL is triggered pursuant to s. NR
217.04(a)(1‐6), Wis. Adm. Code, unless a more restrictive s. NR 217.13 WQBEL, which is expressed as a
concentration, has taken effect in the permit. An exception may occur when the permittee enters into a
water quality trading agreement to demonstrate compliance with a more restrictive s. NR 217.13
WQBEL, however. See applicable water quality trading guidance to determine whether the TBEL remains
in the permit in those situations.
A TBEL, which is expressed as a concentration, is not replaced by TMDL-derived WQBELs, which are
expressed as a mass. Both the TBEL and the TMDL-derived WQBELs should be included in the permit
unless the TBEL is displaced by a more restrictive s. NR 217.13 WQBEL.
Including a TMDL-derived WQBEL
TMDL-derived phosphorus WQBELS must be included in WPDES permits whenever a facility is given a
phosphorus WLA in a USEPA approved TMDL (s. NR 217.16, Wis. Adm. Code). These TMDL-derived limits
are mass limits and are expressed consistently with the TMDL (see Section 4.1 for details).
Including a NR 217.13 WQBEL in addition to the TMDL-derived WQBEL
Section NR 217.16, Wis. Adm. Code, states that the Department may include a TMDL-derived WQBEL for
phosphorus in addition to, or in lieu of, a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL in a WPDES permit. If the direct receiving
water is the impaired segment covered under a USEPA approved TMDL, or if the TMDL was derived so
that local and downstream water quality criteria would be met through TMDL implementation, the
WLA-based limit can be included in the WPDES permit absent the s. NR 217.13 WQBEL. This limit should
be expressed in a manner consistent with the wasteload allocation and assumptions of the TMDL (see
Section 4.1).
Under certain TMDL scenarios facilities may be given WLAs to protect a downstream impaired water,
but these WLAs may not be sufficient to protect water quality in the immediate receiving water body
segment. In these situations Department staff should use professional judgment to determine whether
a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL is necessary. In order to be environmentally protective, it is recommended that
both the TMDL-derived limit and s. NR 217.13 WQBEL be included in the permit unless sufficient
evidence can justify dropping the latter limit. When deciding whether to use a WLA-based WQBEL as a
substitute for the WQBEL calculated under s. NR 217.13, the Department shall consider the following
factors (s. NR 217.16(1)(a-c), Wis. Adm. Code):
1. The degree to which nonpoint sources contribute phosphorus to the impaired water.
If the watershed is nonpoint source-dominated, it is likely that TMDL implementation will result in
water quality improvement in the direct receiving water because nonpoint sources will be
controlled in addition to point sources to meet the water quality goals downstream. If it can be
demonstrated that these reductions are sufficient to meet both the local water quality goals and
the downstream TMDL targets, a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL may not be necessary in the first two permit
terms. This demonstration can be made by the WPDES permit holder or the Department in a TMDL
implementation plan. If, on the other hand, the watershed is balanced or point source-dominated,
or there is limited dilution, a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL should be included in the permit.
To determine if the impaired water in question is point or nonpoint source dominated, review the
TMDL report or consider running the PRESTO model at the start of the impaired segment. Contact
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 35 of 52
dnrwaterqualitymodeling@wisconsin.gov if you are interested in attaining PRESTO results for a site
not currently specified in the PRESTO report- http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/presto.html.
If the Department determines that s. NR 217.13 limits are not necessary, the Department will re-
evaluate this decision after every permit term. If after two permit terms, the Department
determines the nonpoint source load allocation has not been substantially reduced, the
Department may include the s. NR 217.13 WQBEL unless these reductions are likely to occur. A s.
NR 217.13 WQBEL will be included in the permit after the third permit term if significant reductions
have not been made (s. NR 217.16(2)).
2. Whether waters upstream of the impaired waters are meeting the phosphorus criteria.
If the local phosphorus water quality criterion is attained and/or local water quality goals are met,
it may also be feasible to include the TMDL-derived limit absent the s. NR 217.13 limit. In this
scenario a TMDL-derived limit will likely be sufficiently protective of both local and downstream
water quality because local water quality goals are already being met in the direct receiving water
and further water quality improvements will be observed through point and nonpoint source
reductions during TMDL implementation. The TMDL-derived limit may be the sole limit included in
the WPDES permit regardless if this limit is more or less stringent than the s. NR 217.13 limit.
3. Whether waters downstream of the impaired waters are meeting the phosphorus criteria.
If a TMDL is not protective of downstream water quality, TMDL-derived limits and NR 217.13 limits
may be necessary to ensure adequate protection is given to local and downstream water quality.
For example, if a TMDL is developed for a river flowing into Lake Michigan and the WLA is
protective of the river but not sufficiently protective of the Lake, both TMDL-derived and s. NR
217.13 limits are likely necessary for inclusion in the WPDES permit.
When making this evaluation, thought should be given to whether the applicable criterion in the
downstream water is more or less stringent than the criterion of the upstream WLA-approved
waterbody. If the TMDL is based on meeting a water quality criterion which is equal to, or more
stringent than, the applicable criterion for the downstream water, the s. NR 217.13 WQBEL may
not be necessary to protect the downstream water. For example, if an impaired stream flows into a
large river, a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL may not be necessary to ensure the protection of the
downstream water. If , on the other hand, the TMDL is based on meeting a water quality criterion
which is less stringent than the applicable criterion for the downstream water, then inclusion of
both the s. NR 217.13 and TMDL-derived WQBELs would be appropriate, particularly if point source
loadings are significant. In these cases the Department may also wish to revise the TMDL to
adequately protect the downstream water.
4. How far the point source is from the impairment.
If the impaired segment is a significant distance away from the point source in question, that
TMDL-derived limit is less likely to be protective of local water quality. Additionally, the likelihood
of marginal impairments between the discharge and the impaired segment increases. Therefore,
both TMDL-derived WQBELs and s. NR 217.13 limits are recommended in these cases.
The above discussion pertains to facilities that do not use the receiving water body segment as their
source of water. If a facility is given a WLA to protect a downstream receiving water and the facility
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 36 of 52
utilizes the receiving water as its water source, it may be necessary to include a s. NR 217.13 WQBEL,
expressed as a concentration and mass, in the permit to protect the immediate receiving water.
4.9 Demonstrating Compliance with TMDL-derived Effluent Limits
The following definitions should be used when evaluating compliance with TMDL-derived effluent limits.
Daily discharge means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limits
expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged
over the day. For pollutants with limits expressed in other units of measurement, the daily discharge is
calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.
Daily maximum effluent limit means the highest allowable daily discharge.
6-Month average effluent limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a specified
6-month period, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during the 6-month period
divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that 6-month period. For total phosphorus,
6-month periods are specified as May through October and November through April.
Monthly average effluent limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the
number of daily discharges measured during that month.
Weekly average effluent limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a specified
7-day period, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during the 7-day period divided by
the number of daily discharges measured during that 7-day period. For total suspended solid effluent
limits derived from TMDL WLAs, the 7-day periods are specified as the first of the month through the
seventh, the eighth of the month through the fourteenth, and so on.
The following examples show how compliance with TMDL-derived effluent limits may be demonstrated.
In an earlier example (page 19), effluent limits of 52.8 lbs/day 6-month average and 158 lbs/day monthly
average were derived from total phosphorus (TP) WLAs for the Green Bay Metropolitan, Green Bay
Facility. From Table 6 on page 37 it can be seen that had the effluent limits been in effect during 2011,
the Green Bay Facility would have been in compliance with the monthly average effluent limit every
month depicted except July. Note that the average mass discharge of TP for a calendar month is
compared to the monthly average effluent limit of 158 lbs/day. Since the average of all 184 daily
discharge values collected during the 6-month period equals 90 lbs/day, the Green Bay Facility would
have been out of compliance with the 6-month average effluent limit of 52.8 lbs/day.
Continuing with this example, effluent limits of 1,196 lbs/day monthly average and 1,478 lbs/day weekly
average for TSS were derived from TSS WLAs. From Table 7 on page 38 it can be seen that had TSS
effluent limits been in effect during 2011, the Green Bay Facility would have been in compliance with
the monthly average limit for the month of September, but not April. Similarly, the Green Bay Facility
would have been in compliance with the weekly average limit for the four weekly averaging periods
during September, but out of compliance for the four weekly averaging periods during April.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 37 of 52
An additional example compares Neenah-Menasha Wastewater Treatment Facility effluent data to TP
effluent limits of 19.4 lbs/day 6-month average and 58.2 lbs/day monthly average. From Table 8 on page
39 it can be seen that had the phosphorus limits been in effect during 2011, Neenah-Menasha WWTF
would have complied with the monthly average effluent limit every month depicted except May. Since
the average of all 120 daily discharge values collected during the 6-month period equals 39 lbs/day, the
Green Bay Facility would have been out of compliance with the 6-month average effluent limit.
Table 6. Green Bay Metropolitan, Green Bay Facility 2011 Discharge of Total Phosphorus
Date
May
(lbs/day)
June
(lbs/day)
July
(lbs/day)
August
(lbs/day)
September
(lbs/day)
October
(lbs/day)
1 25 69 44 75 63 60
2 37 61 56 277 189 43
3 66 59 58 120 213 56
4 38 41 37 115 174 45
5 40 26 151 280 111 44
6 39 31 279 173 254 46
7 34 36 139 63 79 38
8 29 29 180 52 79 29
9 50 31 247 52 115 27
10 70 38 237 47 147 29
11 67 64 258 85 157 39
12 72 37 139 40 226 46
13 52 26 107 39 100 47
14 99 38 117 30 65 48
15 38 67 315 32 76 44
16 29 55 140 38 66 50
17 45 30 167 41 62 41
18 32 25 393 40 51 53
19 38 31 303 92 84 168
20 41 30 167 90 85 249
21 52 32 99 51 43 185
22 39 236 71 54 37 159
23 33 187 54 59 43 160
24 46 100 61 51 44 230
25 55 46 167 50 50 124
26 38 43 161 112 48 79
27 56 42 184 190 46 51
28 37 151 215 183 44 49
29 33 52 424 155 41 41
30 27 41 159 69 49 43
31 74 - 66 69 - 132
Monthly
Average 46 59 168 91 95 79
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 38 of 52
Table 7. Green Bay Metropolitan, Green Bay Facility 2011 Discharge of
Total Suspended Solids
Date
April _ September _
Daily
Discharge
(lbs/day)
Weekly
Average
Discharge
(lbs/day)
Daily
Discharge
(lbs/day)
Weekly
Average
Discharge
(lbs/day)
1 2005 2005
2 1980 1980
3 2733 2733
4 2256 2256
5 2143 2143
6 2055 2055
7 1486 2094 1486 939
8 1671 1671
9 1548 1548
10 2593 2593
11 3471 3471
12 4883 4883
13 1678 1678
14 1255 2443 1255 782
15 1392 1392
16 3310 3310
17 2886 2886
18 2412 2412
19 2191 2191
20 1814 1814
21 4080 2583 4080 767
22 2942 2942
23 2265 2265
24 2006 2006
25 1747 1747
26 7512 7512
27 4628 4628
28 3247 3478 3247 689
29 2138 2138
30 1905 1905
Monthly
Average 2608 797
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 39 of 52
Table 8. Neenah-Menasha Wastewater Treatment Facility 2011 Discharge of Total Phosphorus
Date
May
(lbs/day)
June
(lbs/day)
July
(lbs/day)
August
(lbs/day)
September
(lbs/day)
October
(lbs/day)
1 48 25 29 41 31 35
2 49 25 23 48 39 31
3 37 18 27 40 43 32
4 27 15 31 48 35 25
5 26 14 31 - 42 29
6 - - - - - -
7 - - - - - -
8 46 12 22 66 36 31
9 122 11 24 59 15 39
10 158 15 39 50 25 46
11 202 11 36 45 42 67
12 213 7 31 72 54 62
13 - - - 78 - -
14 - - - - - -
15 26 14 21 58 47 31
16 27 13 20 49 34 27
17 28 11 26 45 21 24
18 24 13 38 53 22 21
19 31 17 34 47 23 51
20 - - - - - -
21 - - - - - -
22 16 28 24 73 36 21
23 20 97 32 61 41 27
24 23 31 37 42 32 27
25 45 34 25 35 53 27
26 25 25 21 30 92 25
27 - - - - - -
28 - - - - - -
29 - - - - - -
30 - - - - - -
31 - - - - - -
Monthly
Average 60 22 29 52 38 34
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 40 of 52
4.10 Compliance Schedules
When incorporated into a WPDES discharge permit, a limit that is consistent with the requirements and
assumptions of a TMDL WLA becomes a WQBEL, as discussed above in Section 4.6, starting on page 17.
At the time of permit reissuance, the Department will evaluate the potential for a discharge to exceed
this TMDL-derived WQBEL to determine the need for a compliance schedule. If the WQBEL has the
potential to be exceeded, a compliance schedule may be granted for existing facilities to comply with
these limits when justifiable (s. 283.13(5), Wis. Stats.).
A compliance schedule may not be included in the permit for a new discharge. Chapters NR 106, NR 207,
and NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, have different definitions of “new discharges” making it necessary to
complete a new discharge determination on a case-by-case basis, depending on the pollutant(s) covered
under the TMDL. If a date certain is not available in rule for a given pollutant, a new discharge can be
defined as a discharge that is issued a WPDES permit on or after the effective date of the TMDL and was
not given a WLA under that TMDL.
Procedures for granting and administering a compliance schedule may be specific to the point source
type (e.g., wastewater treatment plant, municipal storm water) or specific to the pollutant (e.g.,
phosphorus in s. NR 217.17, Wis. Adm. Code). Prior to issuing a compliance schedule, the Department
must use available information to determine if the schedule of compliance 1) will lead to compliance
with the WQBEL as soon as possible, 2) is appropriate and necessary because the permittee cannot
immediately achieve compliance with the WQBEL based on existing operation of its treatment facility,
and 3) is consistent with a TMDL implementation plan in the AWQMP, if appropriate. The following is a
brief summary of compliance schedule requirements:
The duration of a compliance schedule should be as short as reasonably possible;
Compliance schedules must include interim steps and may not allow more than one year between
compliance dates; and
If justified, compliance schedules may extend past the expiration date of the permit only when the
permit includes both an interim limit effective upon the permit’s expiration date and the final
effluent limitation, which is advisory in that it does not become effective within the permit’s term.
There are many factors the Department can consider when determining the appropriate length of a
compliance schedule. These can include the stringency of the limit, the length of time the facility has
already had to consider compliance options, and the complexity/cost of the compliance options, among
others. For TMDLs that cover multiple pollutants, Department staff will need to evaluate the need for,
and appropriate duration of a compliance schedule for each pollutant separately from one another. In
these instances, however, the Department may consider the similarities and differences in compliance
options for these pollutants. If similar compliance options will likely be used for both pollutants, the
Department may wish to coordinate the timing between the compliance schedules.
Example 1: A TMDL is developed to control TP and TSS pollution. A facility needs to install treatment
technology to comply with both phosphorus and TSS limits. To avoid the need for separate facility plans
and overlapping construction projects, it makes sense to synchronize the compliance dates for TSS and
phosphorus in the permit.
Example 2: A TMDL is developed to control TP and TSS pollution. A facility needs to install treatment
technology to comply with phosphorus limits, but can optimize treatment to meet the TSS limit. In this
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 41 of 52
case, the compliance schedules should not be synchronized as the TSS limit can be achieved far sooner
than the phosphorus limit.
4.11 Reassigning Wasteload Allocations (WLAs)
TMDLs are developed to establish maximum allowable loads for an impaired water body to assure water
quality standards will be met. The wasteload allocation (WLA) is the portion of the maximum allowable
load allocated to point sources that discharge into that waterbody. For holders of specific WPDES
permits, the TMDL will usually enumerate individual WLAs. The individual WLA is used as the basis for
effluent limits in the point source’s WPDES permit.
According to USEPA guidance, individual WLAs may be adjusted during the WPDES process, so long as
the total WLA expressed in the TMDL remains the same or decreases and there is no reallocation
between the total WLA and the total load allocation. In other words, individual WLAs may increase or
decrease so long as the total WLA expressed in the TMDL (or TMDL reach) is not exceeded. It may be
appropriate to adjust/reassign individual WLA to correct allocation errors in the TMDL, to allow
discharges and communities to regionalize, or to reassign WLA that becomes available when a facility
closes or an outfall is terminated.
Note: for specific BOD allocations established in ch. NR 212, Wis. Adm. Code, the procedures in that chapter must
be followed for reallocations or temporary transfers of those WLAs. This guidance is intended to address other
reallocations of available WLA not covered by NR 212, Wis. Adm. Code.
The process of reassigning available WLA to municipal and industrial WPDES permit holders with
individual WLAs should not be confused with water quality trading or allocating a portion of the reserve
capacity. The differences between these approaches are highlighted later on in this Guidance in the
paragraphs entitled ‘Available WLA vs. Reserve Capacity’ and ‘Available WLA vs. Trading WLAs’, located
at the end of this section (see page 46).
Reassigning WLAs to Correct for Allocation Errors
In some cases, the Department may need to reassign WLAs to account for an existing point source that
was ‘missed’ or under-allocated during TMDL development. These sorts of corrections should be made
before any available WLA is set aside in reserve capacity or reassigned to other permittees. As
mentioned, this WLA adjustment process does not require establishment of a new TMDL, but affected
permittees and other interested parties will be notified when these decisions are made. Public
notification includes written notification to the affected facilities as well as posting these decisions on
the public notice website (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/publicnotices.html) for 30 days.
Reassigning Available WLA to Account for Regionalization
Rather than discharging their effluent directly, some point sources may choose to send their effluent to
another point source for further treatment. For example, an industry that previously treated and
discharged its own wastewater may decide to connect to a municipal treatment plant for wastewater
treatment. Or a smaller municipality may connect to a larger municipality rather than continue to treat
its own wastewater. In these cases it is recommended that the available WLA be added to the WLA of
the point source that is accepting the additional effluent. This may require permit reissuance of the
facility accepting the waste and permit termination of the other. Adjustments to the available WLA may
be necessary to accommodate the change in location of the discharge. It should be noted that a
reallocation may in some circumstances be considered an increased discharge subject to
antidegradation demonstrations, as required by ch. NR 207, Wis. Adm. Code.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 42 of 52
Reassigning Available WLA When a Facility Closes or an Outfall is Terminated
Upon closure of a facility and termination of a permit containing TMDL-derived effluent limits, or the
reissuance or modification of a permit to remove a surface water outfall, the WLA may be sold by the
permittee or reassigned by the Department, when appropriate. The discussion below describes the
recommended process for handling available WLA from closed facilities and terminated outfalls. A flow
chart is also provided at the end of this section (see page 45), to further illustrate how this process might
work.
Note: this section and the supporting flowchart are intended solely as guidance. The process described is intended
to apply in most situations, but the Department recognizes that steps may occur in another order or may not be
necessary in some situations. For example, a seller (facility terminating discharge) may have already reached an
agreement with a potential buyer (another existing or new discharger in the TMDL area) before announcing to the
Department that it intends to close its facility. Or, Department staff may decide in some cases that it is more
appropriate to terminate the seller’s permit at the same time that the buyer’s permit is reissued, revoked and
reissued, or modified with the adjusted WLA. In any event, all proposed reallocations should be public noticed so
that others can be aware of proposed decisions and agreements that have been made. The written notice should, in
all cases, describe the status of the facility closure and all proposed reallocations, if agreements have already b een
reached.
Wasteload Allocation (WLA) Becomes Available (see Steps 1 & 2 in the flowchart)
A WLA may become available in a number of different ways. Most often, the WLA will have been
incorporated in a WPDES permit. Before final reassignment of a WLA can occur, the WPDES permit
incorporating the WLA must be terminated or modified to eliminate the subject outfall. Termination of
the seller’s permit or outfall can occur prior to reissuance, revocation and reissuance, or modification of
the buyer’s permit(s) or these permit actions can occur simultaneously. If the WPDES permit holder
wishes to sell their WLA to another facility, the permittee (seller) should notify the Department of this
intent. If the permittee fails to notify the Department of the intent to sell the WLA before or with the
request for termination, or during the public notice of a permit termination, the available WLA should
be rolled into the reserve capacity of the TMDL upon termination of the permit, in order to allow for
future growth within the TMDL reach (see ‘Contracts Between Buyer(s) and Seller’ below).
Public Notification of WLA Availability (see Step 3 in the flowchart)
Upon receiving notification that a closed facility has an available WLA that the company wishes to sell,
the Department will notify the availability of WLA in writing to the municipal and industrial WPDES
permit holders with individual WLAs in the TMDL, and will also publish this availability on the public
notice website (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/publicnotices.html) for at least 120 days. This
written notification should include general information about the closed facility and factors that may
impact the eligibility of potential buyers. For example, available WLA sales are only permissible if the
sale does not create localized exceedances of water quality and does not result in the exceedance of
WQBELs for toxicity derived pursuant to ch. NR 106, Wis. Adm. Code, including limits for whole effluent
toxicity and limits based on criteria for temperature. Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41(g) and s. NR
205.07(1)(c), Wis. Adm. Code, a WPDES permit does not convey any property rights of any sort nor any
exclusive privilege. While a facility with an assigned WLA may propose to the Department how that
WLA should be reallocated based upon an agreement with one or more other facilities within the TMDL,
all proposed WLA reallocations within a TMDL are subject to Department review and approval and must
be consistent with applicable regulations.
Note: If the seller notifies the Department that it has already reached an agreement with a buyer(s) and does not
wish to solicit other interested buyers, and if the Department tentatively approves the need demonstration of the
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 43 of 52
buyer(s) and proposed reallocation based on the existing agreement(s), the Department will publish notice of the
proposed reallocation decision and allow a 30 day comment period before the buyer’s permit is modified, revoked
and reissued, or reissued to incorporate any reallocation. This 30 day comment period is in addition to (and should
not occur simultaneously with) that normally required when the permit is modified, revoked and reissued, or
reissued.
Dischargers Interested in Available WLA (see Step 4 in the flowchart)
Interested dischargers should submit a written notice of interest along with a demonstration of need
(see ‘Demonstrating Need’ below) to the seller and the Department before the public notice period
closes. If no eligible WPDES permit holder expresses interest in the available WLA within the 120 day
public notice period, the available WLA should be put into the reserve capacity of the TMDL (see
‘Contracts Between Buyer(s) and Seller’ below).
Demonstrating Need (see Step 5 in the flowchart)
Interested dischargers should not be given available WLA unless they can demonstrate a need for the
WLA. Since need must be demonstrated, the Department is anticipating that only current or new WPDES
permit holders will be eligible to purchase or receive available WLA. Examples of point sources in need
of available WLA include the following:
1. The point source(s) is in need of, or has, a s. 283.15, Wis. Stats, statutory variance for the TMDL-
derived limits;
2. The point source(s) is a new discharge or is expanding their current discharge;
3. The point source(s) is unable to meet current WLAs despite optimal operation and maintenance
of their treatment facility.
4. The available WLA will be permanently retired or otherwise utilized in an adaptive management
plan to work toward compliance pursuant to s. NR 217.18, Wis. Adm. Code;
5. The available WLA will be used in lieu of, or in addition to, water quality trading to achieve
compliance with TMDL-derived limits;
The Department should notify those dischargers that indicated interest whether they have made an
acceptable demonstration of need. It should be noted that a reallocation may in some circumstances be
considered an increased discharge that is subject to antidegradation demonstrations, as required by ch.
NR 207, Wis. Adm. Code.
Determining Appropriate Amount of WLA Available (see Step 6 in the flowchart)
Although the full WLA is available for one or multiple WPDES permit holders to acquire, adjustments
may need to be made in some cases when applying the additional WLA to permit limits, in order to
protect water quality and to conform to the requirements of the TMDL. If adjustments are not
necessary, the entire WLA amount may be applied when deriving WLA-based permit limits for that
facility. Adjustments may be necessary if:
The buyer is upstream of the seller;
The buyer and seller are not in the same TMDL reach;
The buyer and seller are not discharging the same form of the pollutant;
The buyer and seller are not discharging at the same time; or
Other factors, as necessary to ensure protection of local and downstream water quality.
These factors are similar to components addressed when calculating a site-specific trade ratio, and it is
therefore recommended to consult the trade ratio guidance in “Guidance for Implementing Water
Quality Trading in WPDES Permits” when making these decisions
(http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/waterqualitytrading.html). If one or more permittees (potential
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 44 of 52
buyers) have notified the Department and the seller (owner of the closed facility or terminated outfall)
of their interest in the available WLA during the 120 day notice period, and the Department concurs the
potential buyer(s) have demonstrated need for the available WLA, the Department will calculate the
applicable adjustment factors for each potential buyer and notify the seller of the WLA and potential
buyer(s) of these calculations.
Contracts Between Buyer(s) and Seller (see Step 7 in the flowchart)
The seller of the WLA can enter into contractual agreements with the interested buyer(s) to allocate
some or all of the available WLA as they deem appropriate. The Department will reallocate the available
WLA to the interested party or parties that gave notice in accordance with the contractual agreements
made between these parties, provided that the Department has determined that need was
demonstrated and any necessary adjustments were incorporated into the reallocation.
If the seller does not enter into any contractual agreements with interested permittees within 90 days of
being notified of the maximum WLA available to the potential buyers (see ‘Determining Appropriate
Amount of WLA Available’ above), the Department may make a final determination on where the
available WLA goes. It may be that the WLA gets equally or proportionally distributed among all
interested parties, or part or all of the WLA could go into the reserve capacity of the TMDL. Sellers and
buyers should know that any adjusted limit that incorporates a reallocation is subject to the public
participation procedures of a modification , revocation and reissuance, or reissuance under chapter 283,
Stats. The seller will need to submit written confirmation or certification of an agreement with a buyer
before the Department will initiate a modification, revocation and reissuance, or reissuance of the
buyer’s permit to reflect the reallocation.
NOTE: if the closed facility and the facility chosen to receive the available WLA (i.e., the “seller” and “buyer”) are
owned by the same entity, then a contractual agreement may not be necessary. However, these facilities will still
need to notify the Department of their arrangement in writing within 90 days of being notified of the maximum
WLA available. The Department will still need to publish notice of the proposed reallocation decision and allow a 30
day comment period before the buyer’s permit is changed to incorporate any reallocation. This 30 day comment
period is in addition to that normally required when the permit is modified, revoked and reissued, or reissued.
Permit Reissuance and Public Noticing (see Step 8 in the flowchart)
The Department will use the information provided in the steps above to modify , revoke and reissue, or
reissue the WPDES permit of the buyer(s), and, if applicable, the WPDES permit of the seller (e.g.
removing an outfall). Reallocation decisions and other related permit determinations are subject to
public notice and participation procedures as well as opportunities for challenge at the time of permit
modification, revocation and reissuance, or reissuance under chapter 283, Stats. The affected WPDES
permits will be public noticed at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wastewater/publicnotices.html and in the legal
notices section of a local newspaper in the vicinity of the facility for the standard 30 days, and the other
eligible dischargers in the watershed will be notified of the final decision in writing.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 45 of 52
WLA Becomes Available
Facility A closes or
WPDES permit containing
WLA-derived limit(s) is
terminated, if applicable
(1)
Public Notice
DNR publishes notice of
WLA availability & eligibility
requirements
(3)
Permit Reissuance
DNR reissues/modifies
permit(s) w/new WLA-
based limit(s)
(8)
Adjusted WLAs
DNR determines
appropriate amount of WLA
available & notifies
permittee(s)
(6)
Yes
Is Facility A
interested in selling
their WLA?
(2)
Potential Buyers
Does anyone inform
DNR of their interest
within 120 days?
(4)
Yes
Yes
Showing Need
Can interested
permittee(s) demonstrate
need for additional WLA?
(5)
Yes
Contractual Agreements
Is a preliminary
contract signed w/in 90d of
notification of the amount of
available WLA?
(7)
No
WLA rolled into
reserve capacity
(9)
No
No
No
Note: this section & flowchart are intended solely as guidance.
The process described is intended to apply in most situations,
but the Department recognizes that steps may occur in
another order or may not be necessary in some situations. See
the narrative in this section for examples. In any event, all
proposed reallocations should be public noticed so that others
can be aware of proposed decisions and agreements that have
been made. The written notice should, in all cases, describe
the status of the facility closure and all proposed reallocations,
if agreements have already been reached.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 46 of 52
Available WLA vs. Reserve Capacity
The concept of available WLAs can be confused with ‘reserve capacity’, but they are different. In some
TMDLs, a portion of the total loading capacity is set aside as a ‘reserve’ to allow for future increases in
pollutant loading or for other reasons. For example, if there is a proposed new or expanding discharger,
this ‘reserve capacity’ might be used to allow the new or increased discharge. Reserve capacity is
different from available WLAs in that reserve capacities are built into the TMDL. On the other hand,
available WLAs are created after the TMDL has been approved, when a point source no longer needs the
WLA that was set aside for them in the TMDL. However, available WLAs can be placed in reserve
capacity after the TMDL is approved and then used for future increases in pollutant loading or for other
reasons.
Available WLA vs. Trading WLAs
Once a TMDL-derived limit is specified in a WPDES permit, it is no longer an ‘available WLA’. However,
some facilities may not need their full WLA to comply with their limit in the short term. For example, the
facility could add treatment to go above and beyond the TMDL-derived limit. In these cases, the unused
portion could be traded to other point sources to help meet their limits. For more guidance regarding
water quality trading visit http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/documents/wqt-framework-final.pdf.
4.12 Removing TMDL-derived Limits From Permits
While a surface water may be removed from the s. 303(d) list due to improved water quality, the
potential for existing sources to exceed the assimilative capacity of the surface water may remain.
Consequently, WQBELs included in permits to implement WLAs should remain in the permits until it is
determined that the potential for exceeding the assimilative capacity has been eliminated. The means
for making such a determination is a revision of the TMDL. Until the TMDL is revised, WQBELs
established to implement the TMDL should remain in permits.
Limit calculators and permit drafters should be aware that removing a surface water from the s. 303(d)
list does not automatically eliminate the TMDL. Until the TMDL is revised or eliminated through the
continued planning process, WLAs from the TMDL must be included in permits as WQBELs.
4.13 Variances
Since a WLA from an approved TMDL is expressed as a WQBEL in the WPDES permit, the permittee may
seek a variance from the limit pursuant to s. 283.15, Wis. Stats. The need for a variance would have to
be based on naturally occurring pollutants or other limiting factors that prevent attainment of the
standard; human caused conditions or sources of pollution that prevent attainment of the standard and
cannot be remedied; hydrologic modifications that preclude the attainment of the standard and cannot
be restored; physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body that preclude
attainment of aquatic life uses; or that the standard would cause substantial and widespread adverse
social and economic impacts. (See s. 283.15(4)(a)1.a-f, Wis. Stats., for more detail.)
A TMDL does not have to be revised if multiple permittees receive a variance pursuant to s. 283.15, Wis.
Stats. Variances are intended to be temporary and the recipient of the variance is expected to
eventually achieve their WLA. Therefore, the TMDL does not have to be redone.
4.14 Antidegradation
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 47 of 52
If the new TMDL-derived limit results in an increase in an effective existing limit in a permit, then an
antidegradation evaluation is needed. These limitations are no different than other water quality-based
effluent limitations with respect to antidegradation. For example, the initial imposition of a water
quality-based effluent limit, which include TMDL-derived limits, does not require an antidegradation
evaluation as long as the pollutant of concern was previously present in the discharge and the permittee
isn’t proposing an increased load to the receiving water . Possible exceptions include the initial
imposition of a TMDL-derived limit for a discharge to Exceptional and Outstanding Resource Waters, for
a bioaccumulative chemical of concern such as mercury when an increased discharge is proposed, and
when a change in discharge location is proposed.
With a few exceptions, ch. NR 207 requires an antidegradation evaluation when a new or increased
discharge is proposed. Therefore, an antidegradation evaluation is necessary before a TMDL-derived
limit, which has been incorporated into a WPDES permit and has become effective, is increased or the
TMDL-derived limit replaces a less restrictive effective effluent limit.
Note that in most cases, complying with Wisconsin antidegradation requirements also satisfies federal
anti-backsliding requirements.
4.15 Managing Expiration Dates to Facilitate Implementation
Permit drafters should consult the TMDL report, amended AWQMP and TMDL implementation plan to
see whether a scheme for permit expiration dates is proposed. To prevent workload issues, WPDES
program staff should participate in the development of the TMDL, amended AWQMP and
implementation plan.
4.16 Monitoring TMDL Performance
If a permittee agrees to perform surface water monitoring, or is required to perform this monitoring as
part of an adaptive management project, surface water monitoring requirements may be placed in the
permit. While the Department can require effluent monitoring to assess compliance with WQBELs based
on TMDL WLAs, permits should not include surface water monitoring to verify compliance with a TMDL,
unless this is required as part of an adaptive management project as specified in s. NR 217.18, Wis. Adm.
Code. Note: Due to limited resources, the Department may want to think of incentives for the regulated
community or a third party to perform instream monitoring.
4.17 Monitoring of Pollutants Causing Impairments
If there is cause to believe that the discharge of a pollutant may be contributing to impairment of the
surface water (i.e. exceeding the water quality standard), then limit calculators should recommend that
facilities monitor their effluents for the pollutant of concern prior to or during TMDL development (s.
283.55 (1), Wis. Stats.). Effluent monitoring data could be important when determining accurate loading
rates from point sources for the TMDL. The frequency of monitoring necessary may depend on pollutant
type, water quality standards, or site-specific factors. Permits staff should consult with TMDL
development staff when developing a sample collection frequency.
4.18 WQBEL Calculator Responsibilities
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 48 of 52
Once a TMDL is approved, limit calculators should include TMDL-derived WQBELs in recommendation
memos for modified or reissued permits. When preparing WQBELs recommendations, identify the TMDL
report as the source of TMDL-derived effluent limits. The TMDL report or the implementation plan
should identify the WLAs that were used to derive WQBEL effluent limits. Not all of the TMDL’s WLAs
need to be included in the permit, however. If it is not clear what effluent limits should be included in
the permit, here are a few suggestions:
If TMDL-derived limits are not identified in the TMDL or implementation plan, you must select from
the TMDL which WLAs to use as permit limits. The WLA may have to be translated into a workable
permit limit, however. Refer to the sections above for detailed guidance related to how to
determine which limits are appropriate and how to express WLAs as permit limits.
Just because every TMDL provides a WLA representing a total maximum daily load, a daily maximum
limit does not have to be included in permits. This is especially true when the total maximum daily
load equals the monthly total or annual total load divided by 30 or 365, respectively.
Recommendation memos for WQBELs should also indicate whether the TMDL-derived effluent limit
replaces other WQBELs for the same parameter and address antidegradation considerations when doing
so. Recommendations for monitoring discharges of pollutants of concern to impaired waters without an
approved TMDL should also be included in WQBELs recommendation memos.
4.19 Permit Drafter Responsibilities
The WQBEL recommendation memo should specify which WQBELs (including TMDL-derived effluent
limits, when appropriate) should be included in WPDES discharge permits. Here are a couple of
examples on how to include TMDL-derived effluent limits in permits. If you are drafting a permit with
more complex TMDL-derived effluent limits, contact the Permits Section for assistance.
Example #1:
If a permit with a technology-based phosphorus effluent limit of 1 mg/L from ch. NR 217, Subchapter II,
Wis. Adm. Code, is being reissued with a TMDL-derived effluent limit for phosphorus or 6.7 lbs/day
monthly average, the following steps should be taken:
Include in the draft permit the parameter “Phosphorus, Total” and continue the 1 mg/L phosphorus
limit, sample frequency and sample type from the previous permit;
Include in the draft permit the parameter “Phosphorus Total” with units of lbs/day, a monthly
average limit of 6.7 lbs/day, a sample frequency from the previous permit, and a calculated sample
type; and
Code the monthly average limit in SWAMP for all twelve months of the year, beginning in the year
that the limit becomes effective.
Example #2:
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 49 of 52
If a permit with monthly average and daily maximum technology-based concentration limits for TSS is
being reissued with TMDL-derived effluent limits for TSS of 3,000 lbs/day monthly average and 6,000
lbs/day daily maximum, for example, the following steps should be taken:
Include in the draft permit the parameter “Suspended Solids, Total” and continue the TBELs, sample
frequency and sample type from the previous permit;
Include in the draft permit the parameter “WLA Suspended Solids, Total” with units of lbs/day, a
monthly average limit of 3,000 lbs/day, a daily maximum effluent limit of 6,000 lbs/day, a sample
frequency equal to that from the current permit, and a calculated sample type;
Code the monthly average and daily maximum limits in SWAMP for all twelve months of the year,
beginning in the year that the limit becomes effective
Example #3:
If a WQBEL is derived from an annual WLA (lbs/yr), the permit should require the permittee to report
12-month rolling sums for the parameter addressed by the TMDL-derived WQBEL.
Note that the method for calculating the 12-month rolling sum is included in the standard requirements
provided by SWAMP. Therefore, a special footnote to explain how the value is calculated is not
necessary in the main portion of the permit.
Note that guidance for including TMDL-derived effluent limits in permits is likely to change frequently
until we gain experience with implementing TMDLs by way of WPDES discharge permits and modify
SWAMP to more efficiently support the implementation effort. While new guidance will be circulated to
permitting staff, you may want to contact the Permits Section before including a TMDL-derived effluent
limit in a draft permit.
If the permittee requires time to comply with a TMDL-derived effluent limit, see the previous guidance
for compliance schedules in this document.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 50 of 52
5 Appendix A. How to Access TMDL/WLA Information
TMDL/WLA information may be accessed in four ways:
A. Via DNR Web Site: Staff can find TMDL reports on the DNR web site.
Information about draft and final approved TMDLs can be found here: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/.
B. Via WATERS (Water Assessment, Tracking & Electronic Reporting System): It is possible to
determine whether or not a TMDL is being or has been prepared for a particular waterbody by reviewing
an "Impaired Waters Report" in WATERS. Here's how to do it:
Start by connecting to WATERS link under "DNR Tasks" on the DNR Intranet home page or at:
http://prodoasjava.dnr.wi.gov/wadrs/.
1. Log on to WATERS using your Oracle ID and password.
2. Click on the "Reports" tab.
3. Select "Impaired Water Reports."
4. Click on the drop-down box in the "Impaired Water Status" field and select either "TMDL
Development" or "TMDL Approved."
5. Finally, click "Create Report."
Where applicable, TMDL reports (and the associated WLAs) are available to download from the
"Waterbody Documents" section for a particular waterbody in WATERS.
C. Via WT Webviewer (Intranet Surface Water Data Viewer): It is possible to determine whether or not
a TMDL is being or has been prepared for a particular waterbody by viewing and/or creating a map in
the Surface Water Data Viewer. Start by connecting to the "WT Webviewer" link under "DNR Tasks" on
the DNR Intranet home page or at:
http://dnrintranetmaps.enterprise.wistate.us/imf/imf.jsp?site=watershed
1. Click the "Find Location" tab.
2. To specify what you would like to find, select "Waterbody Name and County."
3. Enter the applicable waterbody and county information, click "Go!" A map showing the waterbody
will appear. Zoom in and out as necessary.
4. Click the "Layers" tab.
5. Under "Watershed Management Layers," click on the "Standards, Monitoring, & Assessment Data"
subfolder.
6. Under the "Impaired Waters" subfolder, select the "TMDL status" layer.
7. Finally, click on the "Legend" tab to determine the TMDL status for the waterbody in question.
8. If desired, click on the "Print" tab to print a PDF version of the map.
D. Via USEPA’s Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS): It is possible to
determine whether or not a TMDL has been prepared for a particular waterbody by viewing USEPA’s
ATTAINS web site at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/. Users need to click on the state of Wisconsin on
the map and then follow the link to the most current “Impaired Waters Report.” From that report, users
can conduct a “TMDL Document Search” by clicking on the link with that title.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 51 of 52
6 Appendix B. How to Access Impaired Waters Information
Impaired waters information may be accessed in three ways:
A. Via DNR Web Site: DNR staff can find impaired water information, including the s. 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters, on the DNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/impairedwaters/.
B. Via WATERS (Water Assessment, Tracking & Electronic Reporting System): It is possible to
determine whether or not a waterbody is impaired by reviewing an "Impaired Waters Report" in
WATERS. Here's how to do it:
Start by connecting to WATERS link under "DNR Tasks" on the DNR Intranet home page or at:
http://prodoasjava.dnr.wi.gov/wadrs/.
1. Log on to WATERS using Oracle ID and password.
2. Click on the "Reports" tab.
3. Select "Impaired Water Reports."
4. Click on the drop-down box in the "Impaired Water Status" field and select "303d Listed."
5. Finally, click "Create Report."
C. Via WT Webviewer (Intranet Surface Water Data Viewer): It is possible to determine whether or not
a waterbody is impaired by viewing and/or creating a map in the Surface Water Data Viewer. Here's how
to do it:
Start by connecting to the "WT Webviewer" link under "DNR Tasks" on the DNR Intranet home page or
at: http://dnrintranetmaps.enterprise.wistate.us/imf/imf.jsp?site=watershed.
1. Click the "Find Location" tab.
2. To specify what you would like to find, select "Waterbody Name and County."
3. Enter the applicable waterbody and county information, click "Go!" A map showing the waterbody
will appear. Zoom in and out as necessary.
4. Click the "Layers" tab.
5. Under "Watershed Management Layers," click on the "Standards, Monitoring, & Assessment Data"
subfolder.
6. Under the "Impaired Waters" subfolder, select the "Impaired Waters (303d)" layer.
7. Finally, click on the "Legend" tab to determine the impaired waters status for the waterbody in
question.
8. If desired, click on the "Print" tab to print a PDF version of the map.
TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance:
Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs
Page 52 of 52
7 Appendix C. Statutes and Administrative Rules Relevant to TMDLs
Chapter 227.52, Wis. Stats., ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND REVIEW
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20227 )
Chapter 283, Wis. Stats., POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
s. 283.13 (5) SUBCHAPTER III STANDARDS; EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20283 )
s. 283.31 SUBCHAPTER IV, PERMITS
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20283 )
s. 283.35 (3) WITHDRAWAL.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20283 )
s. 283.83 SUBCHAPTER V, GENERAL PROVISIONS: ENFORCEMENT
s. 283.83 Continuing planning process.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20283 )
s. 283.84 Trading of water pollution credits.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=Ch.%20283 )
Chapter NR 102, Wis. Adm. Code, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WIS SURFACE WATERS
102.06 Phosphorus.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top)
Chapter NR 121, Wis. Adm. Code, AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top)
Chapter NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code, RUNOFF MANAGEMENT
NR 151.004 Performance standards for TMDLs.
NR 151.07 Nutrient management.
NR 151.24 Post–construction performance standard.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top )
Chapter NR 200, Wis. Adm. Code, VARIANCES
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top )
Chapter NR 212, Wis. Adm. Code, WASTE LOAD ALLOCATED WQ RELATED LIMITATIONS
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top )
Chapter NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, STORM WATER DISCHARGE PERMITS.
NR 216.002 Definitions.
NR 216.023 Urbanized area exemption.
NR 216.025 Designation criteria.
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top )
Chapter NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
(Go to: http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=code&jd=top)
FEDERAL LAW/REGULATIONS
Overview: Go to: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/index.cfm
Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act
40 CFR Part 130 (1985, amended 1992)
BUREAU OF WATERSHED MANAGEMANT
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Storm Water Management Program
TMDL Guidance for MS4 Permits:
Planning, Implementation, and Modeling Guidance
Effective: October 20, 2014
Guidance#: 3800-2014-04
Notice: This document is intended solely as guidance, and does not contain any mandat01y requirements except where requirements found
in statute or administrative rule are referenced. This guidance does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations, and is not finally
determinative of any of the issues addressed. This guidance does not create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the State
of Wisconsin or the Department of Natural Resources. Any regulatory decisions made by the Department of Natural Resources in any
matter addressed by this guidance will be made by applying the governing statutes and administrative rules to the relevant facts.
APPROVED:
-~y -~ r1
{fl.,---Vi \o,;t~ttc\!,~
Pam Biersach, Director
Bureau of Watershed Management
D~te
1
A. Statement of Problem
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the wasteload allocations (WLAs) developed as part
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be reflected and implemented through permits. In Wisconsin, storm
water discharge permits are issued pursuant to ch. NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code. As part of the TMDL process,
permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) are assigned individual TMDL WLAs. The
placement of the WLA in a storm water permit can create numerous challenges including defining the municipal
area encompassed by the WLA and modeling conditions to which the storm water WLA is to be applied.
Department staff, municipal officials and storm water management plan developers need guidance to clarify how
assessment of permit compliance with a WLA is to be demonstrated.
B. Background
A TMDL quantifies the amount of pollution that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet water quality
standards. EPA requires that waters listed as impaired on Wisconsin’s 303-d list have TMDLs developed. At a
minimum, TMDLs must allocate the assimilative capacity between the load allocation, the WLA, and a margin of
safety. The WLA is the portion of the assimilative capacity that is allocated to point sources. Nonpoint sources
receive load allocations (LAs). WLAs are established for continuous point source discharges and also
intermittent pollutant releases such as permitted storm water discharges.
Establishing WLAs for storm water sources requires an understanding of under what flow conditions impairments
occur, and how storm water discharges are contributing to the identified impairments. Establishing WLAs for
storm water sources also requires an understanding of exactly where the discharges are occurring. In many cases,
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) have multiple discharge points that can be located in more than
one reachshed1. In a TMDL, WLAs are assigned for each pollutant of concern and by reach. In a TMDL a MS4
can have multiple and different pollutant reduction goals within its municipal jurisdiction.
C. Discussion
Once EPA has approved a TMDL that contains permitted MS4s, the next permit issued must contain an
expression of the WLAs consistent with the assumptions and requirements contained in the TMDL. As part of the
TMDL process EPA approves the WLAs and generally these WLAs are mirrored directly in the permit. While
this seems like a relatively straight forward permit process, the direct application of the WLA can present certain
challenges in implementation due to assumptions required during the development of the TMDL. These
assumptions revolve around aerial extent of the MS4 and its boundary, incorporation of new areas and expansion
of the municipal boundary, and modeling differences between the tools used to create the TMDL versus the
compliance tools used by the MS4. In addition, permitted MS4s have already performed municipal wide analysis
to comply with requirements stipulated in ch. NR 151.13, Wis. Adm. Code. These requirements expressed
reduction goals as a percent reduction from a defined no controls scenario with defined climate records.
1 Reachsheds are also referred to as subwatersheds or segment sheds in TMDL development. A reach is a stream segment or individual lake or reservoir
that is artificially assigned a compliance point or “pour point” where the applicable in-stream water quality standards must be met. Breaks for stream reaches
are made at changes in stream listing (each individually named 303(d) water must have their own set of TMDLs), changes in water quality criteria, and at
pour points or compliance points just upstream of significant changes in flow/assimilative capacity.
2
To build on established methodologies contained in s. NR 151.13, DNR’s preferred option for implementing
TMDLs is using a percent reduction methodology similar to s. NR 151.13. The use of a percent reduction
strategy will utilize reduction goals consistent with the TMDL and allow implementation to continue to build on
the same percent reduction strategy employed in s. NR 151.13 using the same models and tools that MS4s have
already been utilizing. Since EPA only approves the WLA and not the corresponding percent reduction it is
important that the TMDL reports and permit fact sheets, as appropriate, highlight that the percent reductions being
used for implementation are consistent with the approved WLAs in the TMDL.
The usage of a percent reduction framework for implementation allows both the MS4 and DNR the ability to
implement the reductions without having to reallocate and track WLAs across reachsheds, MS4s, and other land
uses. This will minimize the need to continually update the TMDL as municipal boundaries evolve and ease
reporting requirements. In some rare cases allocations may need to be adjusted. This is discussed in Attachment
A.
D. Guidance
This document divides DNR’s guidance for implementing TMDL WLAs for permitted MS4s into three parts:
• Part 1 – Expressing WLAs and Reduction Targets
• Part 2 – Implementation and Compliance Benchmarks
• Part 3 – Modeling
PART 1 – Expressing WLAs and Reduction Targets
An MS4 will have a WLA for each pollutant of concern addressed by the TMDL. Generally the pollutant of
concern for TMDLs in Wisconsin include total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP); however,
allocations for other pollutants such as bacteria or chlorides are possible depending on what pollutants are causing
impairments to surface waters.
Unlike the requirements contained in s. NR 151.13, individual MS4s may be divided in multiple reachsheds. As
such, MS4s may have multiple WLAs and percent reductions instead of the uniform municipal wide percent
reduction employed in s. NR 151.13. Multiple WLAs and percent reductions are the result of needing to meet
water quality requirements for all water bodies and account for changes in water body type, changes in water
quality criteria or targets, changes in flow, changes in designated use, and other similar factors. Compliance with
TMDL requirements will need to be achieved on a reach by reach basis.
Due to the complexity of natural systems, the WLAs identified in the TMDL are the best estimate for meeting
water quality standards and are modeled or simulated predictions. Initial implementation of the TMDL will be in
most cases by design using SLAMM, P-8, or equivalent methodologies to estimate and track pollutant reductions.
The MS4 is typically not required to perform ambient monitoring to assess if water quality standards are being
met, but MS4s do need to track implementation activities and reductions achieved, and report on TMDL
implementation in MS4 annual reports. Once an adequate level of implementation has been achieved, ambient
monitoring can be used to judge progress and monitoring will ultimately be needed to de-list impaired waters and
show compliance with the TMDL.
During the first term of an MS4 permit, after EPA approval of a TMDL, DNR will request that each permitted
MS4 report its actual MS4 area served within each reachshed. Existing MS4 permittees should already have
3
sewershed mapping completed to satisfy previous MS4 permit conditions and this should be used to verify the
current MS4 area served within each reachshed. The Department will provide the GIS data sets used for the
TMDL reachshed boundaries through its website. The main reasons for reporting this information are to
determine if the MS4 area served by each permittee corresponds to each other and does not overlap or omit MS4
service areas and to provide a detailed accounting of MS4 areas and responsible parties.
In most TMDLs, non-traditional MS4s such as permitted universities and state and county highway facilities were
not given unique WLAs and these areas will need to be identified. In addition, most TMDLs are not able to
account for modifications in drainage due to manmade conveyance systems such as storm sewers. These
modifications may require modification of reachshed boundaries. To account for this, the MS4 permit (MS4
General Permit see section 1.5.4.3) will require that permittees submit information to the DNR to verify
appropriate boundaries and areas. To accomplish this DNR will require the following information:
• Updated storm sewer system map that identifies:
o The current municipal boundary/permitted area. For city and village MS4s, identify the current
municipal boundary. For MS4s that are not a city or village, identify its permitted area. The
permitted area for towns, counties and non-traditional MS4s pertains to the area within the
Urbanized Area of the 2010 Decennial Census.
o The TMDL reachshed boundaries within the municipal boundary, and the area in acres of each
TMDL reachshed within the municipal boundary.
o The MS4 drainage area boundary associated with each TMDL reachshed, and the area in acres of
the MS4 drainage area associated with each TMDL reachshed.
• Identification of areas on a map and the acreage of those areas within the municipal boundary that the
permittee believes should be excluded from its analysis to show compliance with its WLA (see “WLA
Analysis Area” in Part 3 of this document”). In addition, the permittee shall provide an explanation of
why each area identified should not be its responsibility.
Note: This information is to be acquired by the DNR through an MS4 annual report.
DNR will evaluate this information and consider whether modifications to the TMDL are warranted. It is
common for TMDL derived MS4 areas and reachsheds to deviate from the actual MS4 drainage areas. Such
deviations can have an impact on the TMDL; however in most cases, these deviations will not have a significant
effect on the calculated percent reduction needed to meet the TMDL allocations.
To assist in understanding allocations the TMDLs developed in Wisconsin have in many cases expressed
reduction goals in both a WLA format (a load expressed as a mass) and a percent reduction format. The percent
reduction is calculated from the baseline condition used in the TMDL to quantify what is needed to meet water
quality standards. During the development of the TMDLs, the percent reduction is calculated using the following
equation:
Percent Reduction (from baseline) = 100 * (1 – (WLA Loading Condition / Baseline Loading Condition))
The baseline loading condition should be described in the TMDL. While there is some variation across TMDLs in
Wisconsin, the baseline loading condition should reflect the regulatory conditions stipulated in s. NR 151.13 and
utilize either the 20% TSS control requirement or the 40% TSS control requirement as the starting point for
TMDL allocations. This is because TMDLs are required, at a minimum, to meet existing regulatory
requirements.
4
In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature approved Act 32 which prohibited the Department from enforcing the 40%
TSS reduction contained in s. NR 151.13, Wis. Adm. Code. As such, TMDLs under development and approved
by EPA prior to January 1, 2012 used the 40% reduction as the baseline loading condition. For TMDLs approved
by EPA after January 1, 2012, the 20% reduction serves as the baseline loading condition. The 20% reduction
required under s. NR 151.13, Wis. Adm. Code, was to have been achieved by 2008.
For consistency with existing s. NR 151.13 guidance and requirements, the permittee’s MS4 permit (MS4 General
Permit - see section 1.5.4.4.1) will be requiring that the no-controls modeling condition be used such that the
TMDL percent reduction goals will be measured from the no controls modeling condition. Since TMDL
development uses the 20% or 40% TSS reduction baseline loading condition, implementation planning will
necessitate converting the TMDL stipulated percent reduction back to a no-controls percent reduction for
pollutants of concern such as TSS and Total Phosphorus (TP). As identified in the approved Rock River TMDL, a
40% TSS reduction corresponds with a 27% Total Phosphorus (TP) reduction. Based on loading data from the
WinSLAMM model, a 20% TSS reduction for MS4s from the no-controls condition corresponds with a 15% TP
reduction. This can be done using a mathematical conversion:
For a TMDL that uses 20% TSS reduction as the baseline loading condition (TMDLs approved after January 1,
2012) the conversion to the no-controls modeling condition is:
TSS Percent Reduction (no-controls) = 20 + (0.80 * % control from baseline in TMDL)
TP Percent Reduction (no-controls) = 15 + (0.85 * % control from baseline in TMDL)
For a TMDL that uses 40% reduction as the baseline loading condition (TMDLs approved prior to January 1,
2012) the conversion to the no-controls modeling condition is:
TSS Percent Reduction (no-controls) = 40 + (0.60 * % control from baseline in TMDL)
TP Percent Reduction (no-controls) = 27 + (0.73 * % control from baseline in TMDL)
The above calculated reductions correspond to the percent reduction measured from no-controls as required by the
permittee’s MS4 permit (MS4 General Permit - see section 1.5.4.4.1). These percent reductions can be compared
to the reduction already achieved with existing management practices as required under the permittee’s MS4
permit (MS4 General Permit - see section 1.5.4.4.4). This comparison, needed for each reachshed, will determine
if additional reductions are needed to meet the TMDL requirements. The MS4 percent reductions from the no-
controls condition for the Rock River TMDL and Lower Fox River TMDL are given in Attachments C and D.
For the MS4 area contained in each reachshed, the no controls load is calculated using SLAMM, P-8, or
equivalent. The MS4 area includes the entire acreage that the MS4 is responsible for excluding areas not under
the jurisdiction of the permittee. As new MS4 area is added or subtracted, the TMDL percent reduction applied to
these areas remains the same. The percent reduction from no controls to meet the TMDL is applied to the MS4’s
modeled no-controls load to obtain the necessary load reduction to meet the TMDL. This load reduction may be
different from that needed to meet the stipulated TMDL WLA; however, MS4 implementation of the TMDL is
driven by the percent reduction and its corresponding load reduction.
For permittees that elect to use water quality trading or where adaptive management may lead to water quality
trading, the load reduction calculated from the no-controls percent reduction should be used when evaluating the
necessary mass.
5
TMDLs do not negate requirements stipulated in s. NR 151.13, Wis. Adm. Code. Therefore, both TMDL percent
reductions and s. NR 151.13 requirements must be met. Once an MS4 meets the s. NR 151.13 requirement of
20% TSS control, an MS4 does not need to continue to update their s. NR 151.13 development urban area
modeling. This is because s. 281.16 (2)(am)3., Wis. Stats., requires a municipality to maintain storm water
treatment practices that are already in place prior to July 1, 2011.
TMDL reports may include both an average annual WLA and a percent reduction for MS4s. For implementation,
MS4s should use the percent reduction. The average annual allocations represent the sum of allocations over the
year and do not account for the monthly variations in the loading capacity of the receiving water. The percent
reductions provided in the TMDL are based on monthly reductions and better reflect the reductions required to
meet the water quality standards.
Example: Appendix V in the Rock River TMDL lists annual mass allocations for Reach 81. The City of
Beloit has a baseline loading for TSS of 181.75 tons and a WLA of 259.62 tons (a net increase).
However, Appendix I identifies that Beloit needs a 7% reduction in TSS for Reach 81 from the 40% TSS
baseline condition. This is because on an overall annual basis Beloit meets its allocation but in certain
individual months it does not. The percent reduction is calculated based on the average of the monthly
allocations used to determine compliance with the water quality standards.
PART 2 – Implementation and Compliance Benchmarks
Storm Water Management Planning (SWMP)
As described in the permittee’s MS4 permit (MS4 General Permit - see sections 1.5.4.4 and 1.5.4.5), DNR will be
requiring a TMDL implementation analysis and plan be completed by MS4 permittees subject to TMDL WLAs.
This analysis and plan should be incorporated in the SWMP as required by the permittee’s MS4 permit (MS4
General Permit - see section 1.5.4). Each MS4 permittee should evaluate all potentially cost-effective alternatives
to reduce its discharge of pollutants of concern so that its discharge is comparable to the percent reductions
stipulated in the TMDL. MS4 permittees may work together with other MS4s that reside in the same reachshed.
A focus of the SWMP should be on improving storm water treatment for areas of existing development during
times of redevelopment. Older, urban development patterns typically did not include the same level of
stormwater management controls that new development does. Reductions achieved through redevelopment can
be counted towards compliance with WLAs. Each municipality should estimate the pollutant reductions that are
expected to be achieved over time through redevelopment of both public and private facilities, including roadway
reconstruction. The rate of redevelopment should be estimated in order to provide a gauge as to how long it
would take to improve storm water management in areas of redevelopment.
When developing components of a TMDL implementation plan, municipalities should, at a minimum, consider
the following implementation methods:
• Ordinance Review and Updates – A municipality may elect to revise its current post-construction storm
water management ordinance to require greater levels of pollutant control for redevelopment and highway
reconstruction that are above the minimum performance standards of ch. NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code and
are consistent with the reduction requirements contained in the TMDL.
Current ch. NR 151 post-construction performance standards for areas of new development include an
80% TSS control level and maintaining 60 - 90% of predevelopment infiltration (with certain exemptions
6
and exclusions). Areas that have stormwater management practices designed and maintained to meet
these performance standards should already be controlling TSS and total phosphorus to levels comparable
to TMDL water quality targets.
In addition, core provisions in the municipality’s SWMP could be strengthened. For example, if bacteria
are a pollutant of concern the MS4 may want to place greater emphasis on detecting and eliminating
cross-connections between wastewater pipes and storm sewers or stronger pet waste programs.
• Quantifiable Management Practices – These practices include, but are not limited to, structural controls
such as wet detention ponds, infiltration basin, bioretention, sump cleaning, low impact development
(LID), street cleaning and vegetated swales where reductions can be quantified through water quality
modeling such as WinSLAMM and P-8.
• Non-Quantifiable Management Practices – Quantifiable pollutant reductions may be difficult to
determine for some practices such as residential leaf and yard debris management programs, lawn
fertilizer bans and information and education outreach activities. This could also include strengthened
provisions of the core SWMP. For example, if bacteria is a pollutant of concern the MS4 may place
greater emphasis on detecting and eliminating cross connections, stronger pet waste programs and greater
focus on elimination of leaching from dumpsters. As data becomes available to quantify reductions the
appropriate credit will be given toward meeting the TMDL reduction requirements. In the interim, DNR
and the permittee should be able to come to an agreement as to whether the measure is beneficial. In
cases where quantifiable reductions are not possible, the use of a non-quantifiable but beneficial practice
shall be deemed as making progress toward compliance with the TMDL reductions. The DNR, in
consultation with stakeholders, will evaluate these practices as new science and data becomes available.
• Stabilization of MS4 – Stabilization of eroding streambanks are eligible for a 50% cost share match
through DNR’s Runoff Management Grant Program. DNR considers streambank stabilization activities
an important step in reducing the discharge of sediment. However, TMDL baseline modeling already
assumes that drainage systems are stable; therefore, it is not appropriate to take credit against the WLA or
percent reduction in the TMDL for stabilization of a drainage ditch or channel of the MS4. However
stabilization projects should be identified in the TMDL implementation plan and can serve as a
compliance benchmark toward meeting overall TMDL goals.
• Streambank Stabilization Outside of the Permitted MS4 – Permitted MS4s may take credit through
pollutant trading for stabilization of channels and streambanks which are outside of the area served by
their MS4. Applicable credit thresholds and trade ratios would apply.
• Water Quality Trading and Adaptive Management - If economically beneficial, a MS4 may wish to
participate in one of these programs. MS4s are eligible to participate in water quality trading to help meet
WLAs. MS4 permittees with areas in the same reachshed can share load reduction credits for practices
within those reachsheds using a 1:1 trade ratio. Also a MS4 may be invited by a Waste Water Treatment
Facility (WWTF) to participate in an adaptive management program pursuant to s. NR 217.18, Wis. Adm.
Code, to reduce phosphorus. Water quality trading and adaptive management guidance are covered under
separate DNR guidance documents available on the DNR website.
• Constructed Wetland Treatment – Wetlands constructed for the purpose of providing storm water
treatment are eligible for treatment credit provided that a long-term maintenance plan is implemented.
Wetlands that receive runoff pollutants are expected to, at some point, reach a certain equilibrium point
7
where they would provide minimal pollutant removal or even act as a pollutant source unless they are
maintained by harvesting vegetation and/or have accumulated sediment removed from them.
Additionally, constructed wetlands installed need to be maintained as stormwater treatment areas in order
to maintain their “non-waters-of-the-state” status. Per federal regulations, wetlands constructed as part of
wetland mitigation cannot be used for treatment credit.
• Storm Water Practices and Existing Wetlands - Wetlands are waters of the state and wetland water
quality standards under ch. NR 103, Wis. Adm. Code apply. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has authority to protect wetlands as well. As such, existing wetlands cannot be used for
treatment, however, in limited circumstances storm water practices can be installed in a wetland provided
all applicable state and federal wetland permits are obtained. It is often difficult to obtain state and federal
permits to construct a storm water treatment facility in a wetland. Contact the local DNR water
management specialist to discuss whether this project might be permissible and the associated written
justification needed to support a wetland permit application.
As discussed, SWMPs for municipalities with approved TMDLs should identify what pollutant reduction
measures will be employed and over what time frame reductions will occur (i.e. 20 tons/yr TSS for redevelopment
sites over the next 20 years).
Compliance Schedule and Benchmarks
Once a TMDL is approved, affected MS4 permittees will receive a TMDL implementation planning requirement
within their next (or potentially initial) permit term. TMDL implementation planning will include determining
storm water management treatment and other measures needed and their associated implementation costs and
timelines to achieve TMDL reductions consistent with the TMDL WLAs. It is expected that the following MS4
permit term will include a compliance schedule to implement pollutant reduction measures in accordance with a
storm water management plan to meet applicable TMDL reductions.
The compliance schedule will require that the permittee be able to show continual progress by meeting
‘benchmarks’ of performance within each permit term. In this case, a ‘benchmark’ means a progress increment –
a level of pollutant reduction or an application of a pollutant reduction measure, which is part of a larger TMDL
implementation plan designed to bring the overall MS4 discharge of pollutants of concern down to a level which
is comparable to the MS4’s TMDL WLA. It is possible that certain benchmarks will not be easily quantifiable
but there needs to be evidence that such benchmarks will provide a legitimate step toward reducing the discharge
of pollutants of concern.
DNR may elect to place specific benchmarks in an MS4 permit. However, it is expected that MS4 permittees will
have the primary role in establishing their own benchmarks for each 5-year permit term. Benchmarks should be
reevaluated at least once every 5 years and are interim steps/goals of compliance. Where substantial reductions
are required multiple benchmarks of compliance will be needed and likely implemented over more than one
permit cycle. However, the schedule should lead to meeting the TMDL WLA as quickly as is feasible.
Redevelopment ordinances designed to implement stormwater management controls to achieve compliance with
the TMDL requirements are an excellent tool to show progress in meeting the WLA with smart growth and
development patterns. Management practices should be installed as infrastructure is replaced. For example, it
may be most cost-effective for municipalities to install storm water treatment and infiltration practices as other
street or sewer projects are scheduled.
8
Under a TMDL, EPA does not acknowledge the concept of maximum extent practicable as defined in s. NR
151.006, Wis. Adm. Code, but rather compliance schedules can be structured in SWMPs and permits to allow
MS4s the flexibility needed to meet TMDL goals. Any storm water control measures employed by the MS4
permittee to reduce its pollutant discharge to comply with the TMDL reductions will need to be maintained or
replaced with comparable stormwater control measures to ensure that load reductions will be maintained into the
future.
Runoff Treatment Outside of the MS4’s Jurisdiction
In order for an MS4 to take credit for the control of pollutants by another municipality or private property owner
(i.e. industry or riparian property owner), the MS4 must have an agreement with the entity with control over such
treatment measure. This agreement must specify how the pollutant reduction credit will be shared or otherwise
granted to an MS4. Responsibilities for maintenance of the BMPs and preservation of the BMPs over time should
also be addressed in any such agreement.
Tracking
The permittee will need to track and show progress in reducing discharges of pollutants of concern. This tracking
should assist in showing that MS4 permit compliance benchmarks have been achieved in accordance with an
overall storm water management plan to achieve compliance with the TMDL percent reduction targets.
A tabular TMDL compliance summary of pollutant loading per reach will be required to be submitted to DNR
with the MS4 report at least once every MS4 permit term. The summary should identify the following: reach
name and number (consistent with the name and number in the TMDL report), the MS4 outfall numbers,
named/labeled drainage areas, the applicable TMDL percent reduction target(s), pollutant reduction benchmarks,
storm water management control measures implemented, and pollutant reduction achieved as compared to no
controls. Attachment B is an example of a tabular TMDL MS4 compliance summary.
PART 3 – Modeling
Discussion
The following discussion highlights the main compatibility challenges between TMDL development and MS4
implementation and how they will be addressed.
TMDL waste load allocations are by definition expressed as daily loads. There is flexibility, however, to
implement the loads using monthly, seasonal, or annual load allocations. Due to the variability of storm water
events and associated pollutant loadings, MS4’s have historically used modeling to estimate flows and pollutant
loadings using a percent reduction format for the purpose of s. NR151.13 compliance. As part of TMDL
implementation, average percent reductions have been developed for MS4s for each reach. These percent
reductions generally reflect an average of monthly reductions needed to meet allocations because waters are
evaluated against the phosphorus criteria based on monthly sampling protocols. This will allow MS4s to continue
using water quality models such as WinSLAMM and P-8 for demonstrating compliance with TMDL allocations.
As with s. NR 151.13, TMDL compliance for MS4s will be by design.
Since the modeling tools used to demonstrate compliance with s. NR151.13 pollutant loadings are the same tools
used to demonstrate compliance with TMDL pollutant load allocations, much of the existing mapping, water
quality modeling, and planning methodologies used for s. NR151.13 compliance can be used or adjusted for
TMDL compliance planning.
9
Generally, the modeling completed as part of TMDL development is at a less detailed scale than the modeling
completed by individual MS4s. Due to the scale at which the respective models are completed, it is not unusual
to have differences in the drainage areas and the pollutant mass loadings associated with them. Because of the
scale at which they are developed, allocations from a TMDL have generally been applied across the entire urban
area that is served by the permitted MS4. It is important to note that while many components of existing planning
efforts and modeling results can be used for TMDL implementation, adjustments will likely be necessary to
account for a TMDL focus on compliance by reachshed.
There may be inconsistencies between the TMDL modeled drainage areas to the actual MS4 drainage areas.
Actual MS4 drainage areas may not follow the surface drainage areas and MS4 drainage areas commonly expand
due to urban development. For example, the modeled versus actual MS4 drainage areas commonly deviated by
30% and by as much as 60% in the Rock River TMDL. Although these deviations may have a significant effect
on a mass wasteload allocation, its affects are greatly moderated on a percent reduction basis across the
reachshed. Area deviations commonly affect the MS4 percent reductions by only a few percent. Given the
modeling assumptions that have gone into TMDL modeling, deviations by even 10% are within the expected error
range of TMDL modeling. Modeling is not an exact science and the TMDL MS4 percent reductions are still
considered valid implementation targets to work toward achieving in-stream water quality.
As noted above, MS4s subject to a TMDL should perform analyses and planning to identify cost-effective
approaches for reducing discharges of pollutants of concern. To cost-effectively achieve pollutant reductions,
MS4s should look for opportunities such as site redevelopment and road reconstruction projects, implementation
of streambank stabilization and wetland restoration projects, implementation of traditional BMPs, and possibly
water quality trading and adaptive management 2. Each of these elements can be considered for implementation to
meet the requirements of a TMDL. It is likely that existing MS4 water quality modeling and mapping can be used
and adjusted as necessary for SWM planning needs for TMDL implementation.
Guidance
TMDL-established WLAs and LAs are ‘targets’ of treatment performance and/or pollutant control for point and
non-point sources. The WLAs and LAs are TMDL modeled estimates of the level of pollutants that can be
discharged and still meet in-stream standards. The ultimate goal of a TMDL is for continual reduction of
pollutants discharged so that both the listed impaired waters and other waters meet in-stream water quality
standards, which would then allow for removal of waters from the 303-d impaired waters list. Municipalities
should consider the drainage area served by their MS4 and look for the most cost-effective means to reduce
discharges of pollutants of concern until their discharge is comparable with its TMDL requirements.
TMDL Analysis Area
An MS4 is to include all areas within its corporate boundary unless it is listed as optional. Although the MS4
permit focuses on current areas served by an MS4, it may be appropriate to include future land use planning areas.
Incorporation of rural areas: A city or village may have incorporated the entire township or a large portion of the
rural township in which it resides. In this situation, the city or village needs to include all areas within the most
2 The Department has prepared separate guidance documents on water quality trading and adaptive management. MS4s are considered non-point sources
for the purposes of adaptive management. This does not preclude them from participating in an adaptive management program if approached by a traditional
point source such as a municipal or industrial wastewater treatment facility. The “Adaptive Management Technical Handbook” is available for download at
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/adaptivemanagement.html
10
recent urbanized area, adjacent developed and developing areas whose runoff is connected or will connect to their
MS4.
Highways: A permitted MS4 owner/operator of a highway needs to account for the pollutants generated within
the Right-Of-Way (ROW). An exception would be a roadway crossing over a highway where the owner of the
roadway crossing structure is responsible for the pollutants associated with their bridge and approach structure
within the lower highway’s ROW. WisDOT is responsible for state highways that are not connected highways.
A county is responsible for county highways that it maintains. Cities and villages need to include connecting
highways as identified and listed in the Official Highway State Truck Highway System Maps at:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/highways/connecting.htm
Optional: The pollutant loads associated with the following areas are optional for an MS4 to include:
1. Area that never passes through a permittee’s MS4 such as a riparian area.
2. Land zoned for agricultural use and operating as such.
3. Manufacturing, outside storage and vehicle maintenance areas of industrial facilities permitted under
subch. II of ch. NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code, are optional to include. This does not include any industrial
facilities that have certified a condition of “no exposure” pursuant to s. NR 216.21(3), Wis. Adm. Code.
Note: DNR recommends that municipalities include all industrial facility areas within their WLA
analysis area instead of creating ’holes’ within its area of analysis.
4. Any area that discharges to an adjacent municipality’s MS4 (Municipality B) without passing through the
jurisdictional municipality’s MS4 (Municipality A). Municipality B that receives the discharge into their
MS4 may choose to be responsible for this area from Municipality A. If Municipality B has a stormwater
treatment practice that serves a portion of A as well as a portion of B, then the practice must be modeled
as receiving loads from both areas, independent of who carries the responsibility for the area. However, if
runoff from an area within Municipality A’s jurisdiction drains into Municipality B’s MS4 but then drains
back into Municipality A’s MS4 farther downgradient, then Municipality B does not have the option of
including the load from Municipality A in their analysis and the load from that area is Municipality A’s
responsibility.
5. For county and towns, the area outside of the most recent urbanized area as defined by the US Census
Bureau. This area is classified as non-permitted urban and part of the non-point source load allocation
(NPS LA).
MS4 Water Quality Models and Related Information
To model pollutants such as TSS and total phosphorus in the area served by the MS4, the municipality must select
a model such as SLAMM, P8 or an equivalent method deemed acceptable by the Department. For the analysis to
show compliance, SLAMM version 9.2 or P8 version 3.4 or a subsequent version of these models may be used.
All roadway right-of-ways within the urbanized area that are part of a county or town’s MS4 are the responsibility
of the county or town. Model the road based on the urban land use that will most typify the traffic, even if
agricultural land use is on one or both sides of the road (for example commercial or residential) and include that
area in the corresponding standard land use file.
A municipality is not required to use the standard land use files if it has surveyed the land uses in its developed
urban area and has “real” source area data on which to base the input files. The percent connected imperviousness
beyond the standard land use files must be verified in the field. Disconnection may be assumed for residential
rooftops where runoff has a flow path of 20 feet or greater over a pervious area in good condition. Disconnection
for impervious surfaces other than residential rooftops may be assumed provided all of the following are met:
• The source area flow length does not exceed 75 feet,
11
• The pervious area is covered with a self-sustaining vegetation in “good” condition and at a slope not
exceeding 8%,
• The pervious area flow length is at least as long as the contributing impervious area and there can be no
additional runoff flowing into the pervious area other than that from the source area.
• The pervious area must receive runoff in a sheet flow manner across an impervious area with a pervious
width at least as wide as the contributing impervious source area.
Water quality modeling is a means to determine a storm water management control practice’s treatment
efficiency. If the model cannot predict efficiencies for certain storm water management control measures that a
municipality identifies as a water quality management practice, then a literature review should be conducted to
estimate the reduction value. Proprietary stormwater management control measures that utilize settling as their
means of TSS reduction should be modeled in accordance with DNR Technical Standard 1006 (Method for
Predicting the Efficiency of Proprietary Storm Water Sedimentation Devices).
When designing storm water management practices, runoff draining to a management practice from off-site must
be taken into account in determining the treatment efficiency of the measure. Any impact on the efficiency must
be compensated for by increasing the size of the measure accordingly.
Storm water management practices on private property that drain to an MS4 can be given treatment credit,
provided the municipality enters into an agreement or has an equivalent enforceable mechanism with the
facility/land owner that will ensure the management practice is properly maintained. The municipality will need a
tracking system that includes maintenance of treatment practices. An operation and maintenance plan, including a
maintenance schedule, must be developed for the stormwater management practice in accordance with relevant
DNR technical standards. The agreement or equivalent mechanism between the municipality and the private
owner should include the following:
• A description of the stormwater management practice including dimensions and location.
• Identify the owner of the property on which the stormwater management practice is located.
• Identify who is responsible for implementing the operation and maintenance plan.
• Outline a means of terminating the agreement that includes notifying DNR.
The efficiency of a storm water management practice on both public and private property must be modeled using
the best information the municipality can obtain on the design of the practice. For example, permanent pool area
is not sufficient information to know the pollutant reduction efficiency of a wet detention basin even if it matches
the area requirements identified in Technical Standard 1001 Wet Detention Basin for an 80% reduction.
Information on the depth of the wet pool and the outlet design are critical features that determine the level of
control a detention pond is providing.
Modeling Clarifications
• A TMDL might remove certain internally drained areas from its analysis. If an internally drained area is
removed from the TMDL analysis, the MS4 permittee shall not include such area in its MS4 analysis to
show compliance with its TMDL requirements. Under this scenario if stormwater is pumped from inside
the internally drained area to an external drainage area, then this additional pollutant discharge needs to
be accounted for in the MS4 analysis to show compliance with its TMDL requirements.
• Where an internally drained area is included in the TMDL analysis, an MS4 permittee has the option of
including this area in its TMDL analysis to show compliance with its TMDL requirements. However,
credit for pollutant removal in internally drained areas may only be taken provided the April 6, 2009 DNR
Internally Drained Area guidance memo is met with respect to taking pollutant reduction credit within
internally drained areas.
12
• When water is pumped rather than gravity drained from an internally drained area of many acres in area,
the MS4 will be expected to use monitoring data to determine the annual average mass of pollutants
discharged to the surface water to which the TMDL applies. This does not apply to dewatering covered
under a DNR storm water construction site general permit.
• If a portion of a municipality’s MS4 drains to a stormwater treatment facility in an adjacent municipality,
the municipality generating the load will not receive any treatment credit due to the downstream
municipality’s treatment facility unless there is an inter-municipal agreement where the downstream
municipality agrees to allow the upstream municipality to take credit for such treatment. DNR anticipates
that such an agreement would have the upstream municipality assist with the construction and/or
maintenance of the treatment facility. This contract must be in writing with signatures from both
municipalities specifying how the treatment credit will be shared.
• For reporting purposes, the pollutant reductions must be summarized by TMDL reachshed. Additionally,
pollutant loads for grouped drainage areas as modeled shall also be reported. Drainage areas may be
grouped at the discretion of the modeler for such reasons as to emphasize higher priority areas, balance
model development with targeting or for cost-effectiveness.
• The additional runoff volume from areas that are outside of the analysis area needs to be accounted for
when it drains into treatment devices. The pollutant load can be “turned off” but the runoff hydrology
needs to be accounted for to properly calculate the treatment efficiency of the device.
• Due to concerns of sediment resuspension, basins with an outlet on the bottom are generally not eligible
for pollutant removal based solely on settling. However, credit may be taken for treatment due to
infiltration or filtration. Filtration might occur through engineered soil or proprietary filters. Features to
prevent scour should always be included for any practice where appropriate.
• Credit should not be taken for street cleaning unless a curb or equivalent barrier is present which leads to
sediment buildup on the street.
• To model a combination of mechanical broom and vacuum assisted street cleaning, it may require an
analysis of several model runs depending on the timing of the mechanical and vacuum cleaning. If
mechanical broom and vacuum cleaning occur at generally the same time (e.g. within two weeks of each
other) then only the removal efficiency of the vacuum cleaning should be taken. If the municipality
performs broom sweeping in the spring or fall and vacuum clean the remained of the year, calculate the
combined cleaning efficiency using the following method:
(A) Model the entire street cleaning program as if entire period is done by a mechanical broom cleaner.
(B) Model just the period of time for vacuum cleaning (do not include the mechanical broom cleaning).
(C) Model the same period as B) but with a mechanical broom.
(D) The overall combined efficiency would be A + B – C.
WinSLAMM clarification
• WinSLAMM 9.4 and earlier versions of WinSLAMM result in double counting of pollutant removal for
most treatment practices modeled in series. WinSLAMM 9.2 and subsequent versions contain warnings
to help alert modelers of this issue. The modeler will need to make adjustments to ensure that the results
do not include double credit for removal of the same particle size. PV & Associates has created a
document titled ‘Modeling Practices in Series Using WinSLAMM’ which helps to guide a user as to
whether and or how certain practices can be modeled in series and this document is available at:
http://winslamm.com/Select_documentation.html
• In WinSLAMM 9.4 and earlier versions, when street cleaning is applied across a larger modeled area with
devices that serve only a certain area within the larger modeled area, it is acceptable to first take credit for
street cleaning across the entire larger area but then the treatment efficiency for other devices must be
reduced by the efficiency of the street cleaning to prevent double counting.
13
PS clal'ifications
• P8 does not account for scour and sediment resuspension. DNR requires that a wet basin with less than a
3-foot pennanent pool have its treatment efficiency reduced. A basin with zero pe1manent pool depth
should be considered to get zero credit for pollutant removal due to settling and a basin with 3 or more
feet of permanent pool depth can be given the full pollutant removal efficiency credited by settling. The
pollutant removal efficiency may be given straight-line depreciation such that a basin with a 1.5 foot-deep
pe1manent pool would be eligible for 112 the pollutant removal efficiency that would be credited due to
settling.
• A device that DNR gives no credit for pollutant removal may still be modeled if it is in series with other
practices because of its benefit on runoff storage capacity that may enhance the treatment efficiency of
downgradient treatment devices. To do so, turn the treatment efficiency off in P-8.
• P8 should be started an extra year or at least several months before the "keep dates'', in order to allow the
model to build up representative pollutant concentrations in wet basins.
CREATED:
e;,, :5 y)c;;--
Eric S. Rortvedt, W ~ter Resource Engineer
On behalf of the Stmm Water Liaison Team
Kevin Kirsch, Water Resource Engineer
TMDL Development Coordinator
APPROVED:
Mary At Lowndes, Chief
Runoff Management Section
Date
14
Attachment A: Technical Notes
Establishing relationships between multiple point and nonpoint pollutant sources and their influences on stream flow and
water quality is complex. This process is often further complicated by the spatial scale under which TMDLs are
developed. In order to help make TMDL development manageable, TMDLs are often developed using large scale
modeling approaches that can be difficult to translate to the smaller scale often needed for implementation. For instance,
loadings from “non-traditional” permitted MS4s (WDOT and county highways and UW campus systems) are often
aggregated with the loadings of traditional MS4s (cities, villages and towns). This loss in resolution can result in
inconsistencies in the WLA assignment necessitating a more thorough examination and possible reallocation of a portion
of the WLA to non-traditional MS4 permittees.
In many cases where there is an existing TMDL that aggregated WLAs, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) will need to review, and may need to reallocate WLAs to MS4 permittees. MS4 permittees will then need to
conduct storm water management planning to evaluate their current pollutant loads relative to the TMDL reduction goals
and create and implement a plan to meet the TMDL reductions.
Whether or not a municipality changes in size or land use, the allowable pollutant load that the receiving water can handle
does not change. In the TMDL, the total allowable permitted MS4 load was determined by reach and typically was
distributed uniformly across permitted MS4s on a unit area load basis. Since the permitted MS4 allowable unit area load
is the same across a reachshed, MS4 WLAs can be reallocated between each other based on area. However, this
reallocation must occur at the same time step that was used in the TMDL development process.
Example: the Rock River TMDL generated allocations on a monthly basis so any reallocation of the WLA
between sources must also proceed on a monthly basis. Simply adding the monthly allocations into an annual
load and reallocating using an average annual unit load approach will result in a misrepresentation of the TMDL
allocations. Analysis must be conducted on a monthly basis.
It is expected that the extent area that will need to be modeled for the MS4 WLA will be larger than that modeled under
the s. NR 151.13 (developed urbanized area modeling analysis). This is because the s. NR 151.13 modeling area has
many optional and excluded areas, whereas, the TMDL WLA analysis generally lumps all of these areas into the WLA.
Also, s. NR 151.13 modeling was based on year 2004 developed area condition versus a TMDL which generally considers
most recent development information.
In municipalities that have recently experienced significant growth, there may be a significant increase in urban area. In
addition, in some instances the total actual permitted MS4 area within a reachshed is different than that used in the TMDL
development process. Initially DNR believed that it would be easy to reallocate a portion of the non-point source LA to
the permitted MS4s based on a unit load approach; however, the task can be more difficult than it initially appears. As
explained above, the reallocation needs to be conducted using the same time step used in the development of the TMDL
and at the same critical flow period used to develop the TMDL. In many cases, this critical flow period used in the
development of the TMDL may not correspond with an average annual unit load.
Reallocation Option: In some cases, where TMDL analysis was conducted on an average annual basis it may be
appropriate to adjust WLAs based on the acreage associated with each MS4 by reachshed. If reallocating WLAs and LAs
within the same reach will still not be adequate to address significant area differences between actual and TMDL modeled
reachsheds, DNR will consider on a case-by-case basis as to whether a reallocation between reaches is warranted. For
example, an MS4 may collect runoff from a substantial amount of area from one reachshed and discharge it directly into
another reachshed.
DNR would include reallocated WLAs in the next reissued permit of affected MS4s. MS4s would have the opportunity to
comment and/or adjudicate reallocated WLAs when the permit is public noticed.
1
Attachment B: TMDL Compliance Summary
TMDL Reach Number & Name: 64 (Yahara River, Lake Mendota & Lake Monona)
MS4 TMDL Percent Reductions needed (no controls): 73% (TSS) & 68% (TP)*
MS4 Existing Controls Percent Reduction (year 2014): 32% (TSS) & 24% (TP)
Modeled MS4 Annual Average Pollutant Load (no controls): 433 tons/yr (TSS) & 124 lb/yr
Modeled MS4 Annual Average Pollutant Load (existing controls): 294 tons/yr (TSS) & 94 lb/yr
Benchmark
(BM)
Description of BM Measure Outfalls
Affected by
BM control
Affected
Drainage Areas
(as modeled)
Implementation
Date
Measure
Treatment
Performance
BM % Reduction toward TMDL
Reduction
MS4 Cumulative % Control
(from no controls)
N/A Existing control measures All All Ongoing TSS: 32%
TP: 24%
TSS: 32%
TP: 24%
TSS: 32%
TP: 24%
1
Increased SWM control for
Roadway Reconstruction
All All 1/1/2020 TSS: 60%
TP: 40%
to MEP
TSS: 0.6% (annually)
TP: 0.4% (annually)
(30% TSS reduction over 50 years)
TSS: 35%
TP: 26%
(Accounts for 5 years of reduction)
2 Implement Enhanced Street
Cleaning Program
001
003
004
008
1A - 1D
3A – 3K
4C – 4F
8D
1/1/2020 TSS: 12%
TP: 8%
(no redundant
controls)
TSS: 9%
TP: 6%
(eff. reduced for redundant measures)
TSS: 44%
TP: 32%
3 Implement Enhanced Yard
Waste Collection Program
All All 1/1/2021 TSS: 2%
TP: 6%
(no redundant
controls)
TSS: 1.6%
TP: 5%
(eff. reduced for redundant measures)
TSS: 46%
TP: 37%
4 Ordinance Revised – Higher
Redevelopment Standard
All All 1/1/2022 TSS: 60%
TP: 40%
to MEP
TSS: 0.6% (annually)
TP: 0.4% (annually)
(30% of TSS reduction over 50 years)
TSS: 49%
TP: 39%
(Accounts for 5 years of reduction)
5 Retrofit 2nd St. Basin into wet
basin
002 B4 1/1/2023 TSS: 60%
TP: 40%
TSS: 2%
TP: 1%
(only serves part of MS4)
TSS: 51%
TP: 40%
6 New Wet Basin B15 005 5B - 5H 1/1/2023 TSS: 60%
TP: 40%
to MEP
TSS: 3%
TP: 2%
(only serves part of MS4)
TSS: 54%
TP: 42%
7 Stabilize MS4 Drainage Ways
between X and Y streets
003 3D and 3E 1/1/2024 20 tons/year
sediment
reduction
N/A
Streambank & MS4 stabilization does not
count against TMDL reduction requirement
TSS: 54%
TP: 42%
* The TSS and TP percent reductions were taken from the Rock River Report’s Appendix H and I. All other mass and percent reductions listed are fictitious and shown for example purposes only.
1
Attachment C: Rock River TMDL MS4 Annual Average Percent Reductions
Appendix H Appendix I Calculated Calculated
TP reduction from TSS reduction from TP reduction TSS reduction
Reach baseline of 27% baseline of 40% from no-controls from no-controls
2 29% 1% 48% 41%
3 82% 26% 87% 56%
20 14% 0% 37% 40%
21 10% 0% 34% 40%
23 12% 11% 36% 47%
24 11% 12% 35% 47%
25 64% 32% 74% 59%
26 35% 29% 53% 57%
27 0% 0% 27% 40%
28 1% 0% 28% 40%
29 51% 7% 64% 44%
30 0% 0% 27% 40%
33 29% 9% 48% 45%
34 81% 31% 86% 59%
37 66% 54% 75% 72%
39 0% 0% 27% 40%
45 13% 8% 36% 45%
51 14% 0% 37% 40%
54 61% 6% 72% 44%
55 68% 43% 77% 66%
56 19% 0% 41% 40%
59 54% 15% 66% 49%
60 29% 1% 48% 41%
61 6% 2% 31% 41%
62 70% 70% 78% 82%
63 14% 11% 37% 47%
64 47% 55% 61% 73%
65 49% 46% 63% 68%
66 37% 37% 54% 62%
67 0% 0% 27% 40%
68 52% 18% 65% 51%
69 72% 21% 80% 53%
70 1% 1% 28% 41%
71 29% 31% 48% 59%
72 0% 0% 27% 40%
73 51% 49% 64% 69%
74 17% 20% 39% 52%
75 15% 19% 38% 51%
76 75% 29% 82% 57%
78 4% 0% 30% 40%
79 54% 37% 66% 62%
81 20% 7% 42% 44%
83 37% 25% 54% 55%
Baseline reductions of TP = 27% & TSS = 40% were identified in the RR TMDL report on pages 25 & 27.
% TP reduction from no-controls = 27 + [O. 73 x (% TP control in Appendix H)]
% TSS reduction from no-controls = 40 + [0.60 x (% TSS control in Appendix I)]
Reaches that are not listed above did not have a permitted MS4 within the reach.
Table developed by: Eric Rortvedt, DNR Stormwater Engineer
Dated: 9/16/2014
Attachment D: Lower Fox River Basin TMDL MS4 Annual Average Percent Reductions
TMDL Report TMDL Report Calculated
TP reduction from TSS reduction from TP reduction
Sub-Basin baseline of 15% baseline of 20% from no-controls
East River 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Baird Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Bower Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Aoole Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41o/o
Ashwaubenon Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Dutchman Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Plum Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Kankapot Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Garners Creek 63.1% 49.9% 69o/o
Mud Creek 39.0% 28.5% 48%
Duck Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Trout Creek 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Neenah Slouah 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Lower Fox River Main Stem 30.0% 65.2% 41o/o
Lower Green Bav 30.0% 40.0% 41%
Baseline reductions of TP = 15% & TSS = 20%.
% TP reduction from no-controls= 15 + (0.85 x (% TP control in Lower Fox TMDL Report)]
% TSS reduction from no-controls = 20 + (0.80 x (% TSS control Lower Fox TMDL Report)]
Table checked by: Eric Rortvedt and Amy Minser, DNR Stormwater Engineers
Dated: 9/16/2014
Calculated
TSS reduction
from no-controls
52%
52o/o
52%
52o/o
52%
52%
52o/o
52%
60%
43%
52%
52%
52%
72%
52%
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
City of Oshkosh Specific WDNR Correspondence
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
1
Comments on modeling are shown below. Comments have been categorized as follows:
A. Issues that have the potential to address the overall modeling results significantly. Please address before finalizing modeling.
B. Issues likely to have a minor impact on overall modeling results on an individual basis, but may cumulatively impact the overall results.
Please address as many of these as possible before finalizing modeling.
C. Informational comments—No action is required at this time.
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
1. B NR 216 and
TMDL
Approximately 70 acres near the intersection of W
Ripple Ave and S. Washburn St. appears to be
campground but it is coded as agricultural and
therefore excluded from the analysis. This area
does not appear on aerial photos to be utilized for
agricultural purposes and therefore should be
assigned a land use that more closely fits its use. It
should be included in the analysis for both NR 216
and TMDL.
NR ‐216 – The situation was reviewed. Since this
land use was agriculture in 2004, it will remain
coded as agricultural for the MS4 analysis.
TMDL – The situation was reviewed and the
identified areas are now modified to reflect the
appropriate land use.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
2
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
2. B NR 216 and
TMDL
The Pollutant Loading analysis should include
all areas that the City has maintenance
jurisdiction over. For State Highways,
overpasses where the City has maintenance
jurisdiction should be included in the City’s
analysis. Examples are:
1. County Road N over US 41
2. W. 20th Ave over US 41
3. W. 9th Ave over US 41
4. Witzel Ave over US 41
5. W. Snell Rd. over US 41
The above overpasses represent a relatively small
area overall but are noted for future reference.
The City has sent a MOU to the County in 2009
to confirm who has jurisdiction over the various
State Highways. This formal status of
“maintenance jurisdiction” is pending with the
County for resolution. The draft MOU can be
found in Attachment 1. Current anticipated
responsibilities are noted in the comments
section.
The City will continue to work with respective
agencies and will incorporate loadings and
reductions accordingly. This will not be
accomplished in this SWMP update cycle. These
modifications will not have a significant impact
on the results of implementation plan of the
study.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
3
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
3. B NR 216 and
TMDL
Generally given BMP, particularly a wet pond, serves
only area from a single watershed. Area from the
following watersheds have all been assigned to the
Winnebago County Mental Health BMP and TSS and TP
removals of 0.73 and 0.47 respectively:
East Snell Road (379.74 acres)
Fernau Ave (0.32 acres)
Green Valley Road (13.17 acres)
Neenah Slough (0.12 acres)
Sherman Road South (20.67 acres)
Looking at the WinSLAMM for Winnebago Cty Mental
Health v2, it has two ponds (not in series) as follows:
Main Park Pond (500.977 acres)‐71% TSS
reduction, 47% TP reduction
Coughlin Center Pond (23.26 acres)‐92% TSS
reduction, 65% TP reduction
It appears that the Main Park Pond discharges within the
East Snell Road watershed and the Coughlin Center Pond
discharges to the Sherman Road South watershed MS4
system. If the source areas do drain to these ponds,
then the source areas should be assigned to the
watershed they drain to and have pollutant removals
consistent with the pond they drain to.
This is also an issue for the following BMP’s:
400 E. Main Parking Lot
Deerfield Village
Winnebago Cty Sheriffs Dept.
The situation was reviewed and the
identified areas are now modified to reflect
the appropriate watershed name.
The model for the Winnebago Cty Mental
Health area does have the BMPs in series.
They are in the same model, but in parallel
systems. The overall weighted reduction
was applied to both of the sites rather than
modeling each site individually which results
in the same reduction overall from the site.
The situation was reviewed and the
identified areas are now modified to reflect
the appropriate watershed name.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
4
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
4. A NR 216 and
TMDL
The Pollutant Loading analysis includes all County
roadway Right‐of‐way and several large County‐
owned parcels. Please provide documentation of
maintenance agreements with Winnebago County
clarifying which areas are under the maintenance
jurisdiction of the City. Please provide the
Department with any existing agreements to take
credit from pollutant removal from areas under
County maintenance jurisdiction and large parcels
owned by the county. Any areas for which an
agreement is not currently in place may be
modeled but must be quantified separately and the
City may not take credit for pollutant loading and
removal until the necessary agreements are in
place.
County ROW areas that were identified by the
County as their MS4 responsibility are excluded
from the analysis (see excluded areas map of the
Oshkosh SWMP report and attached figure of
County ROW used to establish excluded areas)
As noted previously, an MOU with the County
has been initiated.
The City will continue to work with respective
agencies and will incorporate loadings and
reductions accordingly. This will not be
accomplished in this SWMP update cycle. While
future modifications to these ROW areas would
change final loading results, we feel that it
would not have an significant impact on the
results overall nor impact the City’s meeting of
the current MS4 reduction requirements or
change the implementation plan of this study.
Larger parcels, such as, the airport swales, are
subject to the stormwater utility credit which
required maintenance and reporting. See the
Airport Stormwater Management Report
example in Attachment 2. Section 4.7 explains
the maintenance agreement.
The larger parcels are included and identified in
the report and can be tracked individually.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
5
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
5. A NR 216 and
TMDL
The Pollutant Loading analysis includes the entire
UW Oshkosh campus. Please provide the
Department with any existing agreements to take
credit from pollutant removal from the UW
Oshkosh MS4 area. Any areas for which an
agreement is not currently in place may be
modeled but must be quantified separately and the
City may not take credit for pollutant loading and
removal until the necessary agreements are in
place.
The City was working with UWO on a MOU to
define roles and responsibilities. This is pending
with UWO for resolution, since April 26, 2012
(See attached draft MOU in Attachment 5).
The City will continue to work with UWO. Since,
UWO is anticipated to become City
responsibilities it is included and quantified
separately in report.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
6
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
6. B NR 216 and
TMDL
A comparison of select Base Load WinSLAMM runs
to the Street Cleaning WinSLAMM runs were made
to determine if the No‐controls source areas
matched the with controls conditions. It was found
that for Rail‐Clay Soils, the base load source areas
did not match the source areas modeled for the
with controls condition (for example, the acres of
roof and parking area was not the same). A
subsequent comparison of the ‘NC Particulate
Solids Yield (lbs)’ column in the Base Loads.xls file
(for clay soils only) used to calculate no‐controls
and with controls loadings demonstrated that the
following land uses are likely overestimating or
underestimating pollution loadings due to
differences in the source areas:
Airport
Light Industrial
Multi‐family Residential With Alleys
Medium Industrial
Railroad
The situation was reviewed and the identified
source areas are now modified.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
7
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
7. B NR 216 and
TMDL
Land Use assignments between Base condition and
Existing condition should be consistent. The
following variations were noted:
3rd Ave LI UWO 1.33
Campbell Creek SCOM UWO 4.34
Dawes St LI MFRNA 0
Division St LI MFRNA 0.29
Division St LI MI 1.68
Division St LI SCOM 8.37
N/A LI MI 0.09
N/A LI UWO 0.04
Nebraska St LI MFRNA 0.99
Osceola St LI UWO 0.47
Osceola St SCH UWO 2.81
Sawyer Creek OSUD LDR 0
South Main St LI MFRNA 0.33
Total 20.74
This comment was discussed with the WDNR
during the review process and the identified
sites will remain as is. Since, the land use on the
parcels changed, it is appropriate for the
analysis that they are assigned different land
uses between base and existing conditions.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
8
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
8. C NR 216 and
TMDL
Michel’s Materials Oshkosh Quarry (111 acres) is
identified in mapping as isolated but per DNR
records this site is externally drained with pit
dewatering. Therefore it cannot be excluded as
‘internally drained’ but could be excluded as a
production area of a permitted industrial site.
This comment was discussed with the WNDR
during the review process and the coding of this
site was revised to “Quarry ‐Permitted
Industrial” instead and will still be excluded from
the analysis.
9. A NR 216 and
TMDL
No field verification documentation has been
provided for grass swales. Grass swale conditions
and geometry should be reviewed per DNR
Guidance “Process to Assess and Model Grass
Swales” at
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/documents/Gr
assSwales080424.pdf
Swales that were not eliminated by visual
inspection should be evaluated for scour and re‐
suspension using the results of velocity or shear
stress calculations as identified in the guidance.
This is a particular concern for swales that receive
water from piped systems and/or drain large areas.
A summary of the swale field verification was
provided to WDNR (Sue Larson and Gus Glaser)
on 2‐7‐2013 via email. Concurrence with
approach was reached with WDNR on April 4,
2013.
See Attachment 3 for the documentation of the
correspondence with WNDR.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
9
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
10. A NR 216 and
TMDL
Given the variability of the swale infiltration rates
measured during 2‐hour double ring infiltrometer
tests, these values should not be used individually.
The values should be grouped and then a
geometric mean established for each group. The
Department suggests grouping the values on a
macro‐watershed basis (for example, grouping the
test values for swales draining into Lake Butte des
Morts and grouping the test results for swales
draining into Lake Winnebago). A practical
maximum infiltration rate should also be discussed
if modeled swale discharges do not correlate with
observed discharges during rain events. This also
applies to the ‘airport swales’ modeling.
Methods for approaching and using the site
specific infiltration information were discussed
with WDNR in the past. The method currently
applied was approved as noted in the email
exchange with WDNR (Sue Larson and Gus
Glaser) between 2/7 and 4/4 2013. See
Attachment 3 for the documentation of the
correspondence with WNDR.
This comment was again discussed with the
WDNR during the review process for these
comments. The City will leave the modeling as is
for this SWMP report since it was conducted
based on the best know representation of the
areas in question and approved by WDNR.
The City would be open to modifying the
approach taken in the future should WDNR
guidance on this subject change.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
10
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
11. A NR 216 and
TMDL
For SW04, the Department has the following
comments:
a. Please provide a map showing the assumed
drainage area and the conveyance types
for each area.
b. Credit for street cleaning can only be taken
for curbed streets
c. There appears to be a mixture of areas
served directly by swale conveyance
systems and areas with piped systems that
may outlet to swale systems. These areas
should be subdivided to correctly apply the
swale treatment to the applicable areas.
d. Please address infiltration rates and
provide field verification documentation
and velocity calculations as requested in
the comments above.
e. Please exclude any length of swale that
shows visual evidence of significant
duration of ponded water.
The report includes a map showing the swale
drainage areas.
See Attachment 3 for the documentation of the
correspondence with WNDR.
This comment was discussed with the WDNR
during the review process. We believe that the
modeling for swale and C&G areas with street
cleaning are applied properly.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
11
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
12. A 216 and TMDL Street cleaning appears to have been modeled
using a mix of mechanical and vacuum assisted
street cleaning equipment. The 2008 City of
Oshkosh storm water management plan assumed
all vacuum assisted street cleaners. Please provide
a summary of what type of equipment and what
the frequency of sweeping is under current
conditions. Modeling using a combination of
mechanical broom street sweepers and vacuum
assisted street cleaners should be completed per
page 6 of the MS4 Modeling ‐ NR 151.13 (20/40%
TSS Standard) guidance
(http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/documents/G
uidance_TSS.pdf)
The mechanical broom street cleaner is used
more heavily in spring time and in areas with
heavier debris (such as construction sites), often
prior to a HE cleaner pass. Otherwise HE
cleaning is applied city‐wide year round.
We feel that the approach and blend of street
cleaners used in appropriate WinSLAMM files by
prorating the street cleaning types over the
source areas and is a reasonable representation
of this mix of street cleaning.
If anything, the method employed for modeling
street cleaning may be slightly conservative.
13. A 216 and TMDL The 9th and Washburn Regional pond is not an
‘existing BMP’ as it has not been constructed yet
(permit applications have been submitted to the
Department and are pending). Therefore it should
be listed as a proposed BMP in the storm water
management plan. The WRAPP submittal includes
modeling with a 356 acre drainage area but the
database only includes 275 acres as draining to the
BMP. Please verify the drainage area served by this
BMP and make updates as needed.
The 9th and Washburn Detention Basin is now
listed as a proposed BMP.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
12
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
14. A 216 and TMDL Please provide location information for regional
ponds at 9th & Washburn Westhaven, South Park
Ave, and Westhaven Club House. If these ponds
have not yet been installed, then they may not be
included as existing BMP’s but should be listed as
proposed.
The report includes a figure identifying all BMPs.
15. B 216 and TMDL The BMP at 1200 Koeller St does not appear to be
holding water on the current Google Maps aerial
photo. If this BMP is not being maintained such
that there is permanent pool then credit cannot be
taken for this feature. Please either remove from
the modeling or provide documentation that the
pond has been repaired such that it can function as
designed.
The Google map photo at 1200 S. Koeller St. was
taken during construction, see photo below.
This BMP has since been completed and now
holds water.
City of Oshkosh Storm Water Pollution Modeling Comments November 11, 2014
13
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment
applies to
analysis for the
following
purposes
Comment Response
16. B 216 and TMDL Please provide additional information for
Department review on the Morton Biofilters.
Specifically, please provide information on the
composition of the engineered soil and indicate if
there is a maintenance agreement in place for this
practice. In addition, the Department was not able
to replicate the 40% TSS removal and 32% TP
removal values listed in the database by running
the WinSLAMM input files provided on 8/24/14.
Please either revise the values in the database or
provide documentation supporting the values in
the database.
Additional information on the Morton Biofilters
is included in Attachment 4.
17. C TMDL Modeling for TMDL purposes should be
summarized per impaired reachshed. Draft
information on the Upper Fox/Wolf TMDL is
available at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/foxwolf/
This report was completed when the TMDL was
not implemented. This report was not
specifically for TMDL purposes and the scope of
the project did not involve this level of detail.
The geodatabase is set up to be easily modified
to align with TMDL reachsheds in the future.
City of Oshkosh Citywide Storm Water Quality Management Plan Update Comments December 12, 2014
1
Comments on report are shown below. Comments have been categorized as follows:
A. High priority comments. Please address before finalizing report.
B. Lower priority comments. Please address as many of these as possible before finalizing report.
C. Informational comments—No action is required at this time.
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment Response
1. A On p. ES‐2, “When TMDLs are calculated for the Upper Fox River
watershed, new reduction targets will be established that will supersede
the current NR 151 requirements.” Please revise this statement. TMDL’s
do not supersede current NR 151 requirements. TMDL’s are in addition
to the NR 151 requirements.
The statement was revised.
2. A In the Executive Summary, please break out the pollutant removal
associated with the County and UW Oshkosh areas in the table and
include a note identifying that the City cannot take credit for these
removals until agreements are finalized with the County and UW. The
City should be reporting pollutant removal results without including
county and UW areas until such time as the agreements are signed by
both parties.
The summary of MS4 area percent
removal by MS4 owning agency from
added to the Executive Summary.
3. B Table 4‐6 lists Sioux Prop. Man. Inc as a non‐regional Wet Detention
Basin with 100% TSS removal. Review of the WinSLAMM Modeling for
this site shows that the site was modeled not with the wet pond that is
present on site but with swale BMP’s. This appears to be inappropriate
as the only swales visible on aerial photos are on WisDOT ROW and not
part of the City’s MS4. Please either remove the facility from the list (if
it drains directly to the WisDOT ROW without passing through the City’s
MS4 then it is an optional area) or revise the modeling to reflect the
BMP on the property.
The site drains to the wet detention
basin through swales on the property
then to a wet detention pond. It does
not utilize DOT swales. We
understand your concern regarding
the high infiltration rates associated
with some swales. We are utilizing
the best available information and
applying local data to the degree
possible. We will further evaluate our
approach to using site specific swale
data in the future.
City of Oshkosh Citywide Storm Water Quality Management Plan Update Comments December 12, 2014
2
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment Response
4. C In section 1.3.3 grass swales are identified as an existing BMP with
rather high infiltration rates given the prevalence of clay soils within the
City. Please be advised that the Department plans on re‐assessing its
technical guidance on grass swale modeling and this may result in less
credit being given to grass swales in the future.
The City would consider modifying the
approach taken in the future should
WDNR guidance on this subject
change.
5. B In Section 5.1.1.3, please review the verb tenses so that it is clear that
the sizing and pollution removals are estimates. For example, on p. 5‐3
the text states that “The 9 proposed sites would achieve an approximate
annual TSS reduction of 216 tons and a TP reduction of 948 pounds,
which is 12 percent and 9 percent respectively of the City’s base load.” It
would be clearer to state that the sites are projected to provide pollution
removal because detailed design and modeling have not been completed
for these sites.
The statement was revised to “The 9
proposed sites are projected to
achieve an…”
6. C Engineered swales are identified as a proposed BMP in section 5.1.1.5.
There is not enough information in this section for the Department to
evaluate the reasonableness of the assumed TSS and TP reductions.
A statement was added to the report
that the engineered swales were
evaluated using WinSLAMM.
7. B Biofilters are identified in Section 5.1.1.6 as BMP’s that may be utilized
in industrial areas. Some industrial areas may not be suitable for
biofilter installation or treatment due to the presence of soil and ground
water contamination. In addition, there are prohibitions on infiltration
practices from certain industrial source areas. Has this been considered
in the evaluation of potential treatment areas?
The biofilters are considered for
placement in parking lot areas
primarily. Site specific analysis will be
required before implementation.
8. C Most of the proposed ponds are located in areas with wetland indicator
soils. Wetland delineations are likely to be required for storm water
permitting and the presence of wetlands may impact eligibility for urban
non‐point source grants.
The City is aware of this base on prior
implementation efforts.
City of Oshkosh Citywide Storm Water Quality Management Plan Update Comments December 12, 2014
3
Comment
No.
Comment
Category
Comment Response
9. C All regional ponds are subject to wetlands and waterway permitting
requirements. Figure 5‐2 and Appendix D have been forwarded to Sarah
Adkins, Water Management Specialist. The ponds in Figures D‐1, D‐4, D‐
9, and D‐11 appear to warrant further coordination with DNR
Waterways and Wetlands program staff to discuss BMP location and
potential permitting concerns prior to proceeding with design
development.
The City will consider this before
implementation.
10. B There are so many ‘Major Watersheds’ mapped for the City that it would
be helpful to group the watersheds listed in Appendix B by major
receiving body (i.e. Lake Butte des Morts, Fox River, and Lake
Winnebago).
This report was not specifically for
TMDL purposes and the scope of the
project did not involve this level of
detail. The City would be open to
grouping the watersheds listed in the
future.
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Attachment 1
County MOU
November 2014
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between
The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works
and
The Winnebago County Highway Department
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (Memo) is to define the working
relationship between the City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works and the
Winnebago County Highway Department with respect to stormwater management.
Specifically, this Memo will clarify the collaborative roles and responsibilities of the
two agencies as it relates to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit [herein
after referred to as MS4 Permit] activities.
II. BACKGROUND
1. The WDNR has issued separate MS4 Permits to both the City of Oshkosh and to
Winnebago County [under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) requirements in accordance with ch.283, WI Stats. and subch. I of ch.
NR216, Wis. Adm. Code] for stormwater management.
2. A requirement of the MS4 Permit is to develop a pollutant loading analysis for the
municipalities’ MS4 utilizing a stormwater computer model.
3. The MS4 Permit also requires communities to achieve 20% and 40% total
suspended solids (TSS) reduction from the municipalities’ MS4 stormwater
discharge by roughly 2008 and 2013, respectively.
4. Winnebago County, currently, owns six (6) county road right-of-ways (ROW)
located within the City of Oshkosh (County Roads A, E, K, Y, I, and Waukau
Avenue). [ROW includes county road surfaces, shoulder, swales, and additional
area within the ROW.]
5. Currently, four (4) of the six (6) county roadways within the City of Oshkosh (see
attached Table 1.) were designed and constructed to drain stormwater directly into
the City of Oshkosh storm sewer, which underlies the county road ROW. As such,
stormwater generated within the county road ROW (and potentially any additional
associated drainage areas) are directed to curb inlets that are connected to City of
Oshkosh storm sewer. The City of Oshkosh owns the storm sewer system
underlying the Winnebago County ROW at these locations.
6. Based on the MS4 Permit, stormwater runoff generated within the county road
ROW would be required to achieve the 20%/40% TSS reductions prior to the
stormwater entering the City of Oshkosh storm sewer. However, the WDNR
indicates that if the stormwater from the county road ROW would receive the
required 20% and 40% TSS removals at another location (in this case, other than
the curb inlets) prior to discharging to waters of the state, this would meet the
MS4 Permit requirements.
P 1/3
III. AGREEMENT
1. CITY of OSHKOSH RESPONSIBILITIES
The City of Oshkosh agrees to:
a. Perform operation and maintenance on the City of Oshkosh owned stormwater
systems [ie. storm sewer (and any other City owned utility/structures)] underlying
the County ROW and/or serving to drain stormwater runoff from the county road
ROW. [Illicit connections to City-owned stormwater systems would be the
responsibility of the City of Oshkosh.]
b. Develop a pollutant loading analysis for the county road ROWs listed in Table 1.
using a stormwater computer model in accordance with all WDNR requirements;
c. Accept and address (attenuate) stormwater runoff from the Winnebago County
ROWs listed in Table 1. to meet all current (20%/40% TSS reductions) and any
future stormwater requirements (further TSS reductions and/or other
parameters/pollutants) dictated or enacted by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and/or the state of Wisconsin;
d. Provide Winnebago County with any and all necessary records, reports, results,
data, or any documentation regarding stormwater management/MS4 permitting
for the county road ROWs listed within this Memo;
e. The City of Oshkosh will not impose any fees and/or request monies from
Winnebago County for any of these or other associated activities.
2. WINNEBAGO COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES
Winnebago County agrees to:
a.) Perform operation and maintenance on the county owned ROW as long as the
ROWs are owned by Winnebago County; maintenance includes the following:
i. Repair and maintenance of roadways including road surfaces and/or road
base,
ii. Snow and ice removal from the roadways,
iii. Street sweeping of road surfaces and appropriate disposal of sweepings,
iv. Repair and maintenance of road shoulders, swales and county owned
ROW;
b.) Prepare, monitor, and implement illicit discharge procedures for the county road
ROW listed herein;
c.) Prepare, maintain, and implement a pollution prevention plan and procedures for
the county road ROW listed herein;
d.) Provide information and education activities to Winnebago County Highway
personnel regarding these roadways;
e.) Provide the City of Oshkosh with any and all necessary records, reports, results,
data, or any documentation regarding stormwater management/MS4 permitting of
the road segments listed within this Memo.
P 2/3
IV. PROVISIONS
1. The provisions of this Memo are effective upon both parties signatures and shall
continue in effect indefinitely.
2. This Memo covers all future or expanded MS4 Permit boundaries (Urbanized
Area) and/or all future county road ROW constructed to route stormwater to City
of Oshkosh stormwater systems.
3. This Memo and any supplements contained within may be amended at any time
by mutual consent of the parties.
4. Either party may terminate this Memo by giving thirty (30) days prior notice in
writing to the other party.
V. ADOPTION
The foregoing memorandum of understanding has been adopted by each of the
parties thereto, duly recorded in the official proceedings of each, and as attested by the
signatures affixed below.
For the City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works:
_____________________________________________________________________
David Patek, City of Oshkosh, Department of Public Works Date
For the Winnebago County Highway Department:
_____________________________________________________________________
John Haese, Winnebago County Highway Commissioner Date
P 3/3
Table 1. Winnebago County Road ROW within the City of Oshkosh*,
MS4 Modeling and Stormwater Treatment Responsibilities,
Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Oshkosh and
Winnebago County.
OSHKOSH RESPONSIBILITES
County Road A (North Shore Dr., Harrison St.)
from County Road Y to Libbey Ave. (approx. 2.6 miles)
County Road E (Witzel Ave.)
from Barton Rd. to Koeller St. (approx. 1.0 miles)
County Road K (20th Ave.)
from Clairville Rd. to South Park Ave. (approx. 2.4 miles)
County Road I (Oregon St.)
from 24th Ave. to Waukau Ave. (approx. 0.8 miles)
_________________
TOTAL approx. 6.8 miles
* The road segments/areas may expand or be revised in the future.
03/05/09 km nr216/osh mou
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Attachment 2
Airport SWM Report
November 2014
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Attachment 3
Infiltation Documents -
See Appendix C
November 2014
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Attachment 4
Morton Biofilters
November 2014
AECOM 920.235.0270 tel
558 North Main Street 920.235.0231 fax
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901
To enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments
K:\Projects\60139801_Parcel H\8.0 Project Documents\Biofilter O&M Plan_August 2011.doc
Biofilter Operation and Maintenance Plan
90 Riverway Drive
135 and 155 Jackson Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin
August 15, 2011
The Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) for these sites biofilters involves inspection,
operation and maintenance of the physical facilities and of the vegetation within the biofilters.
Implementation of the O&M Plan will enhance biofilter performance and longevity.
Overview
The purpose of a biofilter is to capture runoff from a small watershed and to remove suspended
solids and associated pollutants from the runoff. Biofilters include grass filter strips on the
perimeter, runoff ponding area, mulch and filter bed (engineered soil) to filter and absorb pollutants
under drains and overflow. The ability of the biofilters to function as designed is dependent on
proper operation and maintenance of a biofilter as well as maintenance operations within the
watershed draining to the biofilter. Watershed maintenance activities include periodic sweeping of
paved areas and removal of debris and litter. Biofilters are not to be used for stock piling snow.
Mulch Considerations
The use of mulch in the biofilter can lead to mulch floating or being washed away, particularly if the
incorrect type of mulch is used. Mulch should be shredded hardwood aged at least one year.
Other types of mulch are less dense than hardwood mulch and have a significant tendency to float
or be washed away. Overall, shredded hardwood mulch tends not to float or be washed away.
Experience indicates that some hardwood mulch may float, particularly when first installed, but this
potential problem occurs less frequently over time. However, there are examples where there have
been only small quantities of loss of hardwood mulch even in drainage ditch locations where
flowing water occurs frequently.
The mulch layer should be approximately three inches thick. A thinner layer does not provide the
filtration desired for the mulch. A thicker layer blocks desirable gas transfer between the
atmosphere and the filter bed.
Operation and Maintenance Procedures
1. Inspections
The biofilters should be inspected periodically according to the following schedule:
a. In the spring immediately after snow melt has ended
b. Immediately after rains having a depth of 0.5 inches or greater
c. At a minimum of every month during the snow free period.
AECOM
K:\Projects\60139801_Parcel H\8.0 Project Documents\Biofilter O&M Plan_August 2011.doc
2
Inspections should note the presence of accumulated sediment, debris or litter, condition of the
mulch, the presence of eroded soil, condition of the grass filter strip around the biofilters, and
condition of the overflow and condition of the vegetation. Problems or issues identified by the
inspection should be corrected according to the guidelines in Table 1. The site owner will be
responsible for completing the inspections.
2. Operation
Operation of the biofilters involves periodic observations of the length of ponding within a biofilter
and removing blockage from the overflow if this occurs after a large rain storm. If ponding lasts
longer than 24 hours after a storm, this observation should be recorded. If ponding longer than 24
hours continues over time (one growing season), or the ponding time gets even longer, the mulch
and filter bed likely require replacement unless the under drain is blocked.
3. Maintenance
Biofilter maintenance activities and frequency are described in Table 1.
Table 1
Typical Biofilter Maintenance Activities
Activity Frequency
Remove accumulate sediment
As needed, but typically is an annual activity
that occurs in Spring after snow melt.
Sweeping of paved areas reduces this need,
particularly sweeping in early spring to
remove accumulated road grit.
Add additional mulch
Once per year in spring based on spring
inspection. Re-mulch void areas after storms
as needed. Generally, the above schedule
allows total replacement of the mulch every
three to five years. Mulch should be added to
provide a layer three inches thick. Mulch
should be shredded hardwood mulch aged at
least one year.
Inspect surface and repair eroded areas Minimum every month, repair as needed.
Inspect filter strip grass and repair as needed Minimum every month, repair as needed.
Inspect energy dissipater rock or grass inlet
areas
Minimum every month and after major
storms, repair as needed.
Inspect overflow structures Minimum every month, remove blockage as
needed.
Replace filter bed
Typically every ten years, dependent on
ponding duration, condition of the filter bed
and how often the mulch has been replaced.
Determine the condition of the filter bed by
digging a small soil test pit and soil pH
testing every 5 years. In the test pit look for
AECOM
K:\Projects\60139801_Parcel H\8.0 Project Documents\Biofilter O&M Plan_August 2011.doc
3
evidence of the accumulation of fines on the
surface or within the filter bed. Values for soil
pH should range between 5 and 7. If poor
drainage appears to be caused by surface
clogging then replace only the top foot of the
filter bed. If the duration of ponding is
consistently less than 24 hours, the
accumulation fines is minimal, pH readings
are within the correct range and the mulch
has been consistently maintained then filter
bed replacement times can exceed 10 years.
Inspect perforated pipe under drain Inspect if ponding in biofilter exceeds 24
hours, remove blockage if necessary.
Remove litter and debris Monthly
Water plants Monthly during first two years after plant
installation when inadequate rain occurs.
Replace dying plants Inspect monthly/replace as necessary
Vegetation replacement Necessary when replace the filter bed. It may
be possible to save some plants.
The site owner will be responsible for completing the maintenance activities.
Reporting
The site owner shall report storm water operation and maintenance activities annually in the fall of
the year to the City of Oshkosh Engineering Department. The report will contain a summary of
stormwater operation and maintenance activities including what the activity was, who completed
the work, the date of the activity, and cost.
Attachments
Operation and Maintenance Form
Biofilter Location Diagram
AECOM
K:\Projects\60139801_Parcel H\8.0 Project Documents\Biofilter O&M Plan_August 2011.doc
4
Biofilter Operation and Maintenance Plan
90 Riverway Drive
135 and 155 Jackson Street
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Operations and Maintenance Record Form
Year ___________ Biofilter Number___________
Activity Frequency O&M Completion Record (check off)
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Remove
Sediment Annual (Spring)
Add Mulch Annual (Spring)
Repair Eroded
Surface
Inspect monthly,
repair as needed
Repair Rip-rap
Filter Strip
Inspect monthly,
repair as needed
Repair Inlet
Area
Inspect monthly,
repair as needed
Clean Overflow
Structure
Inspect monthly,
remove blockage as
needed
Remove Litter
and Debris Monthly
Water Plants if inadequate rain
Inspect Plants Monthly, replace
dead plants
Inspect Under
drain, Clean
When Ponding
Exceeds 24 Hours
Replace Filter
Bed
Typically Every 10
years ( O&M Plan)
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Storm Water Management and
Erosion Control Plan
September 21, 2009
Marion/Pearl Phase II Site Development
AECOM Project No. 60101542
Prepared by:
Matthew C. Woodrow, P.E.
Project Engineer
AECOM
920-236-6719
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
AECOM
558 North Main Street
Oshkosh, WI 54901
T (920) 235-0270 F (920) 235-0321
September 21, 2009
Mr. James Rabe
Engineering Department
215 Church Avenue
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903-1130
RE: Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Plan, Marion/Pearl Phase II Site Development, Oshkosh,
Wisconsin -- AECOM Project No. 60101542
Dear Mr. Rabe:
AECOM has completed this Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Plan for the Marion/Pearl Phase II
Site Development located between the intersections of Marion Road and Pearl Avenue with Jackson Street,
Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 24,
Article II, and pertinent sections of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources NR 151 and NR 216.
This plan describes the erosion control features that will be implemented during the reconstruction, and the long-
term management of storm water generated at the site. Analyses were performed to compare the storm water
discharge from the site for post-development conditions to the pre-development conditions. The evaluation
documents that the proposed biofilters and catch basins with sumps incorporated into the site design meet the
City of Oshkosh and WDNR storm water management criteria for a redevelopment site.
Please feel free to contact Matt Woodrow (920-236-6719) or Christopher Murawski (920-236-6714) with any
questions or comments regarding the attached report.
Respectfully,
Matthew C. Woodrow, P.E. Christopher L. Murawski, P.E.
Project Engineer Senior Project Engineer
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................... 1
2.0 Site Description ................................................................. 2
3.0 Relevant Regulatory Requirements ................................ 3
3.1 Peak Discharge Rate Control ............................................... 3
3.2 Storm Water Quality Improvement ....................................... 3
3.3 Storm Water Infiltration ......................................................... 3
3.4 Biofilter Design Criteria ......................................................... 3
4.0 Peak Discharge Rates ....................................................... 4
4.1 Approach ............................................................................... 4
4.2 Storm Events ........................................................................ 4
4.3 Analysis of Pre-development Conditions .............................. 4
4.3.1 Drainage Areas ............................................................ 4
4.3.2 Soil Types and RCN .................................................... 5
4.3.3 Results ......................................................................... 5
4.4 Analysis of Post-development Condition .............................. 6
4.4.1 Drainage Areas ............................................................ 6
4.4.2 Biofilters ....................................................................... 6
4.4.3 Results ......................................................................... 6
4.5 Comparison of Pre-development to Post-development Discharge
Rates ..................................................................................... 8
5.0 Water Quality Improvement ........................................... 9
5.1 Approach ............................................................................... 9
5.1.1 Biofilter Geometry ........................................................ 9
5.1.2 Flow Regulation ......................................................... 10
5.1.3 Planting Bed............................................................... 10
5.2 WinSLAMM Analysis ........................................................... 10
5.2.1 Methdology ................................................................ 10
5.2.2 Results ....................................................................... 10
6.0 Erosion Sediment Control .............................................. 12
6.1 Erosion Control Practices ................................................... 12
6.2 Description of Construction Methods .................................. 12
6.2.1 Preparation ................................................................ 12
6.2.2 Site Grading ............................................................... 13
6.2.3 Building and Utility Construction ................................ 13
6.2.4 Paving ........................................................................ 13
6.2.5 Restoration ................................................................. 13
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
6.3 Construction Site Sequencing ............................................ 14
6.4 Erosion Control Inspection and Maintenance ..................... 15
7.0 Long Term Maintenance ................................................ 16
7.1 Inspections and Maintenance ............................................. 16
7.2 Corrective Action .................................................................. 16
8.0 Conclusion ....................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Soil Map
Attachments
Attachment 1 Hydrology Study - Pre-development Condition
Attachment 2 Hydrology Study – Post-development Condition
Attachment 3 Biofilter Details and Specifications (Plan Sheets
C8.0 through C8.4)
Attachment 4 Grading, Paving, and Erosion Control Plan (Plan
Sheets C3.0, C3.1, C3.2)
Attachment 5 Erosion Control Details (Plan Sheet C5.0)
Attachment 6 Department of Commerce Notice of Intent (NOI)
Appendices
Appendix A Pre-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year,
and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
Appendix B Post-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year,
and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
Appendix C Biofilter Stage-Storage-Discharge Reports
Appendix D WinSLAMM Results and Input and Output Data
AECOM
1
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
1.0 Introduction
AECOM has prepared this Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Plan (SWM/EC) for the Marion/Pearl
Phase II Site Development, located between the intersections of Marion Road and Pearl Avenue with Jackson
Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin (Figure 1). The purpose of this Plan is to describe the development and the methods
that will be implemented to manage peak storm water discharge rates, improve storm water quality, and control
erosion. The Plan includes analyses of pre-development and post-development flow conditions as required by the
City of Oshkosh. This Plan also meets the substantive requirements for managing water quality by implementing
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) regulations. These requirements include:
Substantive requirements of Wisconsin Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permits (NR 216
Subchapter III and NR 151.12)
City of Oshkosh Municipal Code Chapter 24 Article II: Storm Drainage Regulations
Wisconsin Storm Water Management Technical Standards for Construction Site Erosion & Sediment
Control: 1056 (Silt Fence), 1057 (Stone Tracking Pad), 1058 (Mulching for Construction Sites), 1059
(Seeding for construction site erosion control), 1060 (Storm Drain Inlet Protection), and 1068 (Dust Control),
AECOM
2
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
2.0 Site Description
This narrative and the supporting documents describe the proposed reconstruction of the Marion/Pearl Phase II
Site Development. The site location map is provided on Figure 1 on a portion of the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map.
The development extends from Pearl Avenue on the north to Marion Road to the south. The site is bordered on the
east by Jackson Street and to the west is a green space area that will be utilized for future commercial
development.
The site is approximately 4.5 acres that was historically industrial and is currently a brownfield redevelopment site.
The use of the site will change to commercial after the redevelopment is completed. The redevelopment will
include a pharmacy, multi-use building, restaurant, parking lot, utilities, and construction of five biofilters to provide
water quality benefits.
AECOM
3
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
3.0 Relevant Regulatory Requirements
The development plans were prepared to comply with City of Oshkosh Municipal Code Chapter 24, Article II, and
pertinent sections of WDNR NR 151, and NR 216.
3.1 Peak Discharge Rate Control
The Marion/Pearl Phase II Site Development is considered a redevelopment occurring in a designated
redevelopment district, and the proposed site improvements do not result in an increase in the percentage of
impervious surfaces from the predevelopment condition. Therefore, the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 24,
Article II shall be applied on a district-wide basis and peak discharge rate control will not be required. The site is
also exempt from peak discharge requirements of NR 151.12 (5)(b) because the site is considered a
redevelopment post-construction site. Per the request of the City of Oshkosh, AECOM has provided pre- and post-
construction peak discharge rates for comparison purposes only.
3.2 Storm Water Quality Improvement
Storm water quality improvement requirements of NR 151.12 (5)(a)(2) requires reduction, to the maximum extent
practicable, the total suspended solids (TSS) load by 40% for redevelopment projects, based on an average annual
rainfall, as compared to no runoff management controls. To satisfy this requirement, the majority of the developed
site is designed to direct runoff to biofilters.
3.3 Storm Water Infiltration
Infiltration of collected storm water is exempt per NR 151.12 (5)(c)(6)(c) – redevelopment of post-construction sites.
Storm water that falls on vegetated portions of the developed site will infiltrate these naturally pervious areas.
3.4 Biofilter Design Criteria
To satisfy storm water quality requirements, site planning has included five biofilters with controlling overflow
structures. The biofilters have been designed according to the WDNR Storm Water Management Technical
Standard 1004 (Bioretention for Infiltration) to the extent practicable. Section 5.0 describes these criteria in more
detail.
AECOM
4
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
4.0 Peak Discharge Rates
This section discusses the approach, details, and results for the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis used to develop the
peak discharge rates from the site.
4.1 Approach
The proposed project watershed is estimated to be 4.53 acres in the “Pre-development Condition”. This 4.53 acres
is also the approximate area of disturbance. The newly designed storm sewer will include flow from proposed
building rooftops; however, runoff generated from the rooftop areas will not be directed to the biofilters because the
roof is considered “clean” with respect to Total Suspended Solids (TSS). AECOM used the HydroCAD software
package to model the storm water runoff from this watershed. This model is based on the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Manual (TR-55). A runoff curve number and time of
concentration was estimated for each tributary area. The runoff from the drainage areas is represented by a
hydrograph to obtain the peak discharge from the site. The peak discharge rates were estimated to the point at
which storm water runoff enters the onsite storm sewer which is ultimately tributary to the City of Oshkosh storm
sewer.
4.2 Storm Events
For the hydrologic analysis, an SCS Type II, 24-hour rainfall distribution was used. Table 1 lists the rainfall depths
and corresponding storm frequencies used for the City of Oshkosh.
Table 1 - Storm Frequencies/Rainfall Depths
Storm Frequency 24-Hour Rainfall Depth (inches)
2-year 2.40
10-year 3.56
100-year 6.35
Although there is no peak discharge control requirement, AECOM has modeled the 2, 10- and 100-year, 24-hour
storm events to compare the pre- to the post-development site peak discharge rates. The goal is to limit flooding of
the parking lot while attaining the required 40% reduction of TSS.
4.3 Analysis of Pre-development Conditions
AECOM has modeled the 2-, 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events for comparison to the post-development site
discharge rates.
4.3.1 Drainage Areas
The pre-development watershed was assumed to be one drainage area in it original meadow condition. The site
was historically used for industrial purposes with the majority of the site being impervious. The site has since been
AECOM
5
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
cleared leaving it once again in a meadow state. The site was not modeled in its current state, because there are
several low-lying areas that would allow water to pond, and no site discharge would be realized until larger storm
events. Exhibit 1, “Hydrology Study – Pre-development Condition” in the Attachments section, illustrates the
drainage area, along with time of concentrations (Tc), and runoff curve number (RCN) information.
Drainage Areas 1E is 4.53 acres in size. Storm water runoff from this area is directed to the public storm sewer
system within the right-of-way, adjacent to the site. The storm water is then conveyed to the Fox River by the use
of a 54-inch diameter pipe in Jackson Street.
4.3.2 Soil Types and RCN
To help estimate the RCN for the drainage areas, soil types were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (WSS),
operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), for
Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A copy of the soil map for this area is included as Figure 2.
4.3.3 Results
Table 2 summarizes modeling input information and resulting peak discharge estimates for each drainage area and
the total routed site discharge rate, for each respective storm event. Computer output is attached in Appendix A,
which details the input information and resulting runoff/discharge rates.
Table 2 – Pre-development Condition
(2, 10, and 100-Year, 24-Hour Storm Frequencies)
Area
No.
Area
(acres)
Tc
(min)
RCN
2-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
10-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
100-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
1E 4.53 17.5 71 1.91 5.65 17.24
Total 4.53 1.91
5.65
17.24
The above pre-development condition total site discharge rates will be compared to post-development total
site discharge rates, in the following section.
AECOM
6
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
4.4 Analysis of Post-development Condition
AECOM has modeled the 2-, 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events for comparison to the pre-development site
discharge rates.
4.4.1 Drainage Areas
The proposed site has been subdivided into six drainage areas. Exhibit 2, “Hydrology Study - Post-development
Condition” in the Attachments section, illustrates these drainage areas, along with time of concentrations (Tc), and
runoff curve number (RCN) information. A minimum Tc of 5 minutes was assumed for drainage areas 2P to 6P
because of the impervious nature of the site and the short flow path length. Drainage Area 1P has a Tc flowpath
long enough to measure it using sheet and shallow concentrated flow. Routing of storm water was done as
described in the Pre-development analysis.
Drainage Areas 1P through 5P are 3.29 acres of parking lot pavements, sidewalks, and grassed areas that are
tributary to the five biofilters. The biofilters provide detention and water quality aspects before discharging to the
proposed storm sewer system. The storm sewer system is tributary to the public storm sewer in Jackson Street
and ultimately the Fox River.
Drainage Area 6P is the remaining 1.24 acres that is not tributary to the biofilters. These areas are made up of the
three proposed buildings, and pavements and grassed areas that are either collected by the public storm sewer or
the onsite storm sewer. The areas were modeled as one subcatchment in HydroCAD since none of them had a Tc
longer than the minimum of 5 minutes. The two on-site catch basins included in this area have 18-inch sumps to
provide a reduction in TSS.
4.4.2 Biofilters
Discharge from the biofilters will be controlled by a combination of the engineered soil, perforated underdrain pipe
and the overflow structure. The biofilter was designed following the WDNR’s Post-Construction Storm Water
Management Technical Standard 1004 – Bioretention is provided to the extent possible. An in-depth description of
the biofilters is provided in Section 5, and details and specifications are provided in Attachment 3.
4.4.3 Results
Table 3 summarizes modeling input information and resulting peak discharge estimates for each drainage area,
and the total routed site discharge rate, for each respective storm event. Computer output is attached in
Appendix B, which details the input information and resulting runoff/discharge rates. The stage-storage-discharge
tables for the biofilters are presented in Appendix C.
AECOM
7
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Table 3 – Post-development Condition
(2, 10, and 100-Year, 24-Hour Storm Frequencies)
Area No.
Area
(acres)
Tc
(min)
Runoff
Curve
Number
2-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
10-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
100-Year
Peak
Runoff
(cfs)
1P* 1.76 5.5 96 5.71 8.75 15.97
Biofilter 1** 5.52 7.57 8.10
2P* 0.86 5.0 94 2.66 4.21 7.85
Biofilter 2** 2.50 2.79 3.14
3P* 0.13 5.0 90 0.34 0.58 1.14
Biofilter 3** 0.04 0.04 0.26
4P* 0.21 5.0 93 0.62 0.99 1.87
Biofilter 4** 0.12 0.89 1.83
5P* 0.33 5.0 91 0.92 1.52 2.96
Biofilter 5** 0.48 1.45 2.77
6P** 1.24 5.0 90 3.25 5.48 10.81
Total --- --- 11.27 17.88 26.32
* Runoff that is conveyed to the biofilters
** Hydrographs combined to calculate the total site discharge
The Hydro-CAD model also calculated the following peak biofilter elevations:
Table 4
Biofilter Peak Water Surface Elevation
Biofilter
2-Year
(ft)
10-Year
(ft)
100-Year
(ft)
Biofilter 1 749.87 750.11 750.65
Biofilter 2 749.92 750.06 750.42
Biofilter 3 750.63 750.77 751.04
Biofilter 4 750.82 750.89 750.97
Biofilter 5 750.82 750.89 751.00
AECOM
8
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
These results indicate that the overflow structure will control flow from the biofilter. The model also indicates that
even during the 100-year storm event, the peak water surface elevation does not exceed the limits of Biofilters 3, 4,
and 5. The model indicates some inundation of the parking lot in the areas of Biofilters 1 and 2 during the 100-year
event; however, the 10-year storm event should be mostly contained within the biofilter. Storage volume within the
biofilters was only modeled from the surface and up. Some storage volume is available below the biofilter surface,
but a conservative approach was taken and this volume was not included in the model. This would indicate that the
actual peak water surface elevations within the biofilters are most likely lower than indicated in the above table. For
larger storm events, overland relief is provided to pass storm water runoff into the Jackson Street and Marion Road
right-of-ways and ultimately to the public storm sewer in the streets.
4.5 Comparison of Pre-development to Post-development Discharge Rates
Table 5 presents a comparison of the peak discharge rates for both the pre-development conditions and
the post-development conditions.
Table 5
Comparison of Pre-development Discharge and Post-development Discharge Rates
Condition
2-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
10-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
Pre-development 1.91 5.65 17.24
Post-development 11.27 17.88 26.32
Control of peak flow rates is not required due to the classification of the site as redevelopment. The above table is
for comparison purposes only. Please note that the Pre-development Condition was assumed to be meadow prior
to any historic site development. The proposed biofilters provide a degree of attenuation; therefore, the above
“Post-development” discharge rates are most likely less than the peak rates that were discharged from the historic
industrial site.
AECOM
9
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
5.0 Water Quality Improvement
This section discusses the approach, details, and results of the analysis for removal of Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), as a means of storm water quality improvement.
5.1 Approach
Removal of TSS will be accomplished using catch basin sumps and biofilters. The biofilters been designed to
comply with the WDNR Storm Water Management Technical Standard 1004 (Bioretention for Infiltration) design
criteria to the fullest extent feasible. These criteria include:
Biofilter geometry
Flow regulation
Planting Bed
5.1.1 Biofilter Geometry
The following guidelines were followed in the design of the biofilters:
The maximum ponding depth does not exceed 12 inches
The side slope are 2H:1V or flatter
The surface area of the planting bed was maximized based on site constraints
The surface slope of the biofilter does not exceed 1%
The depth of engineered soil was maximized based on site constraints
The ponding depths for the biofilters are approximately 6 inches or less controlled by the overflow structures. The
side slope of the biofilters are 2H:1V in order to maximize the surface area of the engineered soil planting beds.
The depths of the engineered soil planting beds are less than the recommended minimum depth of 3 feet; however,
the depths were limited by the need to discharge collected storm water to the existing storm sewer in Jackson
Street.
The bottom of the biofilters shall be pitched to direct collected storm water to the perforated underdrain pipe. Storm
water will be prevented from infiltrating into the native soil by a geosythetic liner. The geosynthetic liner will prevent
infiltration into the subsurface of the parking lot, and also prevent the possibility of seasonal high ground water from
entering the biofilter. See Attachment 3 for biofilter cross-sections, details, and specifications.
AECOM
10
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
5.1.2 Flow Regulation
Please note that the intended use of the biofilter is for TSS reduction and not for retention or infiltration into the
surrounding native soils. Flow from the biofilter, however, is regulated by the overflow structure. The underdrain
pipe shall be protected from clogging by use of filter fabric or a filter sock, and a 6-inch clean-out shall be provided
for maintenance purposes. A geosynthetic composite liner will line the sides and the bottom of the biofilter to
prevent infiltration into the subsurfaces of the parking lot, and also to prevent the possibility of seasonal high ground
water from entering the biofilter. See Attachment 3 for design details on the overflow structures and underdrains.
5.1.3 Planting Bed
The planting bed will have an engineered soil consisting of 50% mineral (SiO2) sand and 50% compost. Above the
engineered soil will be 2 inches of hardwood mulch. Below the engineered soil there will be a varying depth of pea
gravel in order to pitch the bottom of the biofilter towards the perforated underdrain. See Attachment 3 for layering
and material specifications.
5.2 WinSLAMM Analysis
The WinSLAMM software was used to model the effectiveness of the biofilters designed for the site. The biofilters
were designed using criteria from the WDNR Technical Standard 1004 (Bioretention for Infiltration) to the extent
practicable. Site constraints limited the depth and area of the biofilter, but the design parameters entered into
WinSLAMM indicated that the overall site removal of suspended solids exceeds the 40% reduction as required for a
redevelopment site.
5.2.1 Methdology
WinSLAMM version 9.3.2 was used to calculate the source loading from each drainage area and particulate control
provided by the appropriate storm water best management practice. The analysis includes land use data, controls
data, and calibration files. The overall reduction in TSS was determined by running seven separate WinSLAMM
analyses, and then summing the resulting TSS loads before and after application of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). These summed TSS loads were then used to determine an overall site reduction. The seven models
were necessary to separately model the areas contributing storm water runoff to the five biofilters, two catch basins
with sumps, and the area that directed storm water runoff off-site without any BMP. See Appendix D for
WinSLAMM input, output, and an overall TSS reduction calculation spreadsheet.
5.2.2 Results
WinSLAMM computes the total TSS for the site “without controls” and then computes the total TSS for the site
“after outfall controls”. Based on a comparison of these two totals, the proposed design will result in a TSS removal
of 40.2%. This removal rate complies with the 40% removal rate required by both the City and WDNR for a
AECOM
11
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
redevelopment site. Input and output data and an overall TSS reduction calculation spreadsheet are included in
Appendix D.
AECOM
12
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
6.0 Erosion Sediment Control
This section discusses practices and sequencing of construction to control erosion and minimize sediment
movement from the site.
6.1 Erosion Control Practices
Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be implemented to control erosion for both the planned construction and
continuing site operations. These BMP’s follow the WDNR Construction Site Erosion & Sediment Control Technical
Standards and include:
Non-channel Erosion Mat (1052)
Silt Fence (1056)
Stone Tracking Pad (1057)
Mulching for Construction Sites (1058)
Seeding for Construction Site Erosion Control (1059)
Storm Drain Inlet Protection (1060)
Dust Control (1068)
Plan sheets in Attachments 4 and 5 show the locations, details and specifications for erosion control proposed for
the site.
The redevelopment of the Marion/Pearl Phase II site will include construction of parking lots, utilities, and three
buildings. This redevelopment will include five biofilters with overflow structures, and two catch basins with sumps
to improve storm water quality prior to discharge to the City storm sewer.
6.2 Description of Construction Methods
Construction will be implemented in five basic steps: preparation, site grading, building and utility construction,
paving, and restoration. A general description of each of these steps and the associated erosion control measures
are provided in the following sections. The erosion control measures will be followed as necessary depending on
construction activity.
6.2.1 Preparation
These activities consist of installation and maintenance of perimeter erosion control measures. Silt fence will be
placed around the north, east, and south sides of the site and inlet protection shall be placed in the curb inlets in
Pearl Avenue, Jackson Street, and Marion Road as indicated on Plan Sheets in the Attachment 4. A stone-tracking
AECOM
13
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
pad will be provided at appropriate locations on the site to prevent tracking of sediment associated with
construction from the site onto public roadways. After the perimeter erosion controls are in place, the site clearing,
grubbing, demolition and utility abandonment shall commence. Topsoil and granular material that will be reused
shall be stripped and maintained on-site.
6.2.2 Site Grading
This activity consists of movement and placement of granular fill materials to reach the design grades indicated on
Plan Sheets C3.0, C3.1, and C3.2 in the Attachments section. Grading will be completed by bulldozers, skid
steers, and backhoes. Compaction of fill will likely be completed using mechanical compaction equipment, either
hand-operated (plate compactor) or self-propelled, depending on the size and nature of the area being compacted.
During grading activities, on-site dust control will be performed in accordance with WDNR Technical Standard
1068. Erosion control features installed during the Preparation step will be maintained. Construction of the
biofilters will not take place until after the parking lot construction has been completed to prevent clogging of the
engineered soil planting beds from sediment generated during the construction phase.
6.2.3 Building and Utility Construction
This activity consists of construction of the three proposed building foundations and constructing the water, storm
and sanitary sewer located on site. Utility trenching and placement will be completed by a backhoe. Specific
erosion control measures during pipe installation will include: (1) the placement of excavated materials on the high
side of the trench; (2) backfilling, compacting, and stabilizing the trench immediately after pipe construction; and (3)
not discharging trench water before passing through filtering or settling tanks. Following installation, storm inlets
will be protected using geotextile fabric as shown on Plan Sheets C3.1 and C3.2 in the Attachments.
6.2.4 Paving
This activity includes placement and compaction of dense graded gravel base course and installation of asphalt
and concrete paving for parking areas and sidewalks. Equipment will include a dump truck to haul the material, a
grader to finish grade the base course, machine pavers, and a roller for compaction. Erosion control installed in
prior steps will be maintained during this process.
6.2.5 Restoration
These activities include final grading, topsoil replacement, and re-vegetation of disturbed areas. Landscaping and
removal of erosion control measures are also included in the restoration process.
Topsoil, where required on site, will be placed to a depth of 6 inches commencing immediately after the completion
of final grading. Soils will be stabilized by seeding within seven days of establishing final grade (refer to WDNR
AECOM
14
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Technical Standard 1059 – Seeding for Construction Site Erosion Control). Additional landscaping materials (such
as fertilizer and mulch) will be used, as necessary, to ensure seeding and planting success and soil stabilization
(refer to WDNR Technical Standard 1058 – Mulching for Construction Sites).
The following seed mixture will be utilized:
Kentucky Blue Grass: 35%
Improved Hard Fescue: 20%
Improved Turf Type Hard Fescue: 25%
Improved Fine Perennial Rye: 20%
The seed mixture may be applied as a slurry with a hydraulic seeder at a rate of 3 lbs per 1,000 square feet evenly
in two intersecting directions. Do not seed area in excess of that which can be mulched on the same day.
After construction is completed, the biofilters will be installed (see the biofilter details and specifications in
Attachment 3). The side slopes of the biofilters shall have non-channel erosion mat down to the top of the planting
bed.
6.3 Construction Site Sequencing
Construction is to begin in October of 2009. The construction site sequence for the development is identified
below:
1. Install temporary tracking pads and maintain perimeter erosion controls,
2. Install erosion control silt fence and hay bales downstream of designated stockpile locations,
3. Strip topsoil and stockpile only amount necessary for reuse on-site,
4. Site demolition,
5. Perform preliminary site grading,
6. Construct building foundations,
7. Install water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer,
8. Work subgrade material to desired subgrade elevation in areas of site improvements,
9. Complete final grading, installation of granular subgrade and placement of curbs, pavements, walkways,
and other surface hardscape,
10. Place topsoil, establish vegetative cover, and install landscape features,
11. Construct biofilters
AECOM
15
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
12. Remove erosion controls.
6.4 Erosion Control Inspection and Maintenance
Inspection: All erosion control measures will be inspected: (1) within 24 hours of the end of each rainfall event that
produces 0.5 inches or more during a 24-hour period, (2) daily during periods of prolonged rainfall, and (3) weekly
during periods without rainfall. Construction Site Inspection Report forms will be used to document these
inspections.
Maintenance: All erosion control measures will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Technical Standards for Construction Site Erosion and Sediment
Control. All damaged, failed, or inadequate erosion control measures will be immediately repaired or replaced.
Maintenance of all erosion control measures will be routine to ensure proper function of erosion controls at all
times. Erosion control measures are to be in working order at the end of each workday.
AECOM
16
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
7.0 Long Term Maintenance
The following post-development maintenance for the biofilters will be performed by the Owner.
7.1 Inspections and Maintenance
Document and keep these inspection and maintenance activities, on record. Utilize design plans for reference
during inspections.
On a monthly basis:
Inspect the biofilter for sediment build-up and clogging.
Inspect biofilter’s planting bed for plant health.
Inspect the biofilter’s inlets and overflow structure for collected debris
Inspect the biofilter for collected debris within the planting bed. Observe the condition and integrity of the
side-slope soils, and the establishment and cover related to erosion protection.
Inspect landscaped areas to provide the maximum benefit of vegetative cover.
On an annual basis:
Add additional mulch to the planting bed of the biofilter
Test pH of the biofilter’s planting bed soil to maintain the optimum growing conditions
As needed:
Water biofilter plants as necessary during the first growing season, and as needed after the first growing
season during dry periods.
Inspect the condition of the biofilters, and erosion controls after a storm event involving >0.5 inches of
precipitation over a 24-hour period.
7.2 Corrective Action
As required:
Sediment shall be removed and/or the engineered soil planting bed shall be excavated and replaced when
the biofilter exhibits signs that infiltration is no longer taking place. Sediment shall be disposed of at an
approved location.
Re-mulch void areas of the planting bed.
Treat/replace diseased vegetation to maintain a healthy planting bed.
Remove litter and debris to ensure proper operation.
Note: In order to prevent compaction of the biofilters, snow shall not be dumped directly onto the conditioned
planting beds.
The Owner shall provide access to perform the above operation and maintenance activities.
AECOM
17
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
8.0 Conclusion
This SWM/EC plan summarizes the planned development activities at the Marion/Pearl Phase II Site, and the
methods of storm water management and erosion control that will be employed during and following construction.
Development plans include the parking lot design, storm water collection and conveyance systems, sanitary sewer,
water main, commercial buildings and biofilters and catch basins with sumps for storm water quality improvement.
This SWM/EC plan includes analyses that show:
The biofilters are adequately designed and sized to meet the requirements of the City of Oshkosh storm
water criteria for a redevelopment site. Pre-development and post-development condition peak discharge
rates were compared for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
The developed site will comply with the City of Oshkosh and WDNR Chapter NR 151 and NR 216 storm
water quality improvement criteria for removal of 40% of the Total Suspended Solids load on an average
annual basis.
This SWM/EC plan also includes provisions for erosion control practices during construction and on a long-term
basis to minimize the potential for erosion and sediment movement. Criteria are established for long-term
maintenance activities intended to inspect and maintain storm water management features.
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Soil Map
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Attachments
Attachment 1 Hydrology Study - Pre-development Condition
Attachment 2 Hydrology Study - Post-development Condition
Attachment 3 Biofilter Details and Specifications (Plan Sheets C8.0 through C8.4)
Attachment 4 Grading, Paving, & Erosion Control Plan (Plan Sheets C3.0, C3.1, C3.2)
Attachment 5 Erosion Control Details (Plan Sheet C5.0)
Attachment 6 Department of Commerce Notice of Intent (NOI)
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Appendices
Appendix A Pre-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year, and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
Appendix B Post-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year, and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
Appendix C Biofilter Stage-Storage-Discharge Reports
Appendix D WinSLAMM Results and Input and Output Data
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Appendix A
Pre-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year, and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Appendix B
Post-development Condition: 2-Year, 10-Year, and 100-Year, 24-hour Storm Events
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Appendix C
Biofilter Stage-Storage-Discharge Reports
AECOM
R60101542-SWMECP_9-21-2009.doc
Appendix D
WinSLAMM Results and Input and Output Data
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Attachment 5
UWO MOU
November 2014
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
CITY OF OSHKOSH AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – OSHKOSH
WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh (“City”) operates a storm sewer disposal system
and has been designated by the State Department of Natural Resources as an MS4 (Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System) provider of services; and
WHEREAS, the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh (“University”) is treated under
the law as a municipal provider of storm water disposal services with respect to stormwater
generated on and dispersed from the campus of the University and is similarly designated; and
WHEREAS, the City and University storm water disposal systems are interconnected;
and
WHEREAS, the City has the ability to fulfill the responsibilities of managing both its
systems and that of the University in a manner consistent with laws and regulation applicable
thereto and the University desires to avail itself of said services from the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT.
1. Authority
This agreement is entered into by the parties hereto pursuant to the authority vested in
each of them under §66.0301, Wis. Stats., pursuant to which any city in conjunction with the
state and any department thereof may jointly perform or one on behalf of the other may
perform and the other may receive services or jointly exercise any powers or duties authorized
by law. Each of the parties hereto is authorized to engage in stormwater disposal services
pursuant to approval by the State Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and each
currently owns and operates a stormwater disposal system, subject to the oversight of and
approval by the DNR.
2. Functions to be Performed by the City on behalf of the University
Through this agreement, the City agrees to provide Stormwater Utility service to the
University in a manner consistent with the service it provides to other ratepayers.
Furthermore, the City agrees to perform the following stormwater related services on behalf
of the University:
a. Public Education Website
The City will maintain its website providing education about stormwater effects
and conservation efforts. The University may link to the City page to provide
educational information to University website users as well. The City shall not,
under this agreement, be obligated to provide additional information on its website at
the request of the University.
Intergovernmental Agreement Page 1 of 4
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\DNR
Comments\Attachments\Attachment 5 - UWO MOU\OSH-UW Oshkosh_StormWaterMOU.doc
b. Erosion Control Inspections
The City will provide erosion control inspections of all University active building
sites and report inspection results to the Director of Facilities Management at UW-
Oshkosh for follow up. The City shall not be responsible for any follow up action.
Inspection schedule shall be worked out on a project by project basis.
c. Outfall Inspections
The City will perform annual inspections of the major storm sewer system
outfalls on the Fox River adjacent to UW Oshkosh, and to which UW Oshkosh is a
major contributor. A University employee will accompany the City employee if
available. All inspection reports and follow up work required will be submitted to
the University. The University shall be responsible for the follow up work that is
required.
d. Storm Sewer Inspections
The City will do a comprehensive inspection of the main storm sewer system
components as shown in Exhibit A. Inspections shall occur at a minimum of once
every 5 years. Any repairs that are needed will be performed by the University. The
University will continue to do its own visual inspections of the system semi-annually
as required by their NOI (notice of intent).
e. Pond Inspections
The City will inspect all University owned and operated ponding facilities within
the same rotation as all other City ponds. Currently the ponds are on a 5 year
inspection rotation. All design information needed to perform adequate inspections
shall be provided by the University to the City. Without such information, the
inspections may not cover all required components. Any uncovered items shall be
the responsibility of the University. The ponds to be inspected by the City are also
highlighted in Exhibit A.
f. Storm Sewer System Map
The City will create and maintain a digital map of the University storm sewer
system. The University shall provide to the City any information it obtains about its
storm sewer system. Any corrections and/or updates shall be submitted to the City.
The City will prepare a map submittal for the DNR on an annual basis. The City will
update the map as appropriate based on storm system inspection results. The City
will only be responsible for the completeness of the map to the extent of the
information provided by the University.
3. Functions to be performed as a joint effort between the City and University
a. Public Educational Efforts
The City shall provide the University with any informational brochures already
produced. The University has a stormwater logo contest planned; the City will
assist this effort. The end result will be a logo that can be used by the City and
University in stormwater efforts. The City and University will work together in
locating and promoting generic public service announcements regarding stormwater
management. These public service announcements will be aired on the City cable
station, Channel 16 as well as the University cable station, Channel 19.
b. Community Outreach
c. Annual Public Meeting
Intergovernmental Agreement Page 2 of 4
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\DNR
Comments\Attachments\Attachment 5 - UWO MOU\OSH-UW Oshkosh_StormWaterMOU.doc
The University will organize and hold its own annual public meeting. The City
will provide a representative at that meeting to answer any questions that may arise.
4. Obligation of the University to the City
The University agrees to purchase Storm Water Utility services from the City throughout
the term of this agreement. The University’s fee to purchase this service shall be in
accordance with established rules, rates and ordinances of the City. The stormwater utility fee
is a runoff based fee, which has been adjusted for the University based on the actual land uses
of the University. Monthly rates to the university are established based on estimates of runoff
produced and the current fee per runoff unit, consistent with all other ratepayers receiving
service from the Storm Water Utility.
In exchange for the willingness of the City to perform the functions identified in 2., above,
the University agrees that it shall transfer to the City, during the term of this Agreement, all
pollution control credits needed to help meet the 20% and 40% total suspended solids removal
requirement. The City acknowledges that this is adequate consideration in exchange for the
duties which it is willing to perform under this Agreement. In addition, the University will
continue to pay stormwater utility fees to the City at the current contribution rate.
5. Separate Maintenance and Operation to be Continued
This Agreement shall not be interpreted as an understanding between the parties hereto
that the City will assume the responsibility for the ownership and operation of the
University’s stormwater disposal system. Each party hereto shall separately administer and
operate its system, despite interconnections, subject only to the City’s willingness to provide
services in relationship thereto on behalf of the University. To this extent, the University
acknowledges that it shall remain solely responsible to maintain roof drains, catch basins, and
proprietary devices located on its campus, which direct stormwater into its disposal system.
In addition, the University will organize its own street sweeping, fleet maintenance, and snow
and ice removal program. The University will also conduct semi-annual visual inspections of
their storm water system in addition to the more in depth inspection the City will perform
every 5 years. The City and University will each produce their own annual reports for the
DNR. For items the City has performed for the University, the City will provide the
University documentation needed to complete the annual report.
6. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall continue for a term of ten years from and after the 1st day of the
month next following the date of execution hereof by the parties hereto. Said term shall be
shortened only in the even that the DNR determines that it is in volition of state law or
regulations or by mutual agreement of both parties affected by this Agreement.
7. Miscellaneous Terms
a. The laws of the State of Wisconsin shall govern this Agreement.
Intergovernmental Agreement Page 3 of 4
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\DNR
Comments\Attachments\Attachment 5 - UWO MOU\OSH-UW Oshkosh_StormWaterMOU.doc
b. Notices under this Agreement shall be provided, personally or by US Mail to the
following representatives of the parties hereto:
City of Oshkosh Mr. David Patek, P.E.
Public Works Director
215 Church Ave
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5065
University Mr. Richard Wells
Chancellor
800 Algoma Blvd
Oshkosh, WI 54901
(920) 424-0200
c. The City is not, by assuming the duties imposed upon it under this Agreement,
taking on or absorbing any fiscal responsibility of the University to operate its
stormwater disposal system. Each party shall remain responsible for its own costs
of operation, maintenance and repair. However, to the extent that portions of the
University stormwater disposal system are drained into the City system and to the
extent that portions of the City stormwater disposal system drain into the University
system, each agrees to make such accommodations to the other in terms of
operations and cost as may be deemed equitable under the circumstances.
Dated this ____ day of ________________, 2010.
CITY OF OSHKOSH UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH
By:________________________ By:_______________________________
Intergovernmental Agreement Page 4 of 4
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh SWMP\DNR
Comments\Attachments\Attachment 5 - UWO MOU\OSH-UW Oshkosh_StormWaterMOU.doc
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
Appendix B
Pollution Loads by Watershed
Appendix B
City of Oshkosh
Pollutant Loads by Watershed
TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP
(lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr)
10th Ave 35.0 331.4 0.8 291.4 0.7 12% 9% 35.0 331.4 0.8 291.4 0.7 12% 9%
14th Ave 129.6 247.0 0.9 197.1 0.8 20% 13% 129.6 247.0 0.9 197.1 0.8 20% 13%
15th Ave 14.9 291.8 0.9 209.4 0.7 28% 19% 14.9 291.8 0.9 209.4 0.7 28% 19%
16th Ave 34.3 303.4 0.9 240.9 0.8 21% 13% 34.3 303.4 0.9 240.9 0.8 21% 13%
17th Ave 140.6 247.9 0.9 204.4 0.8 18% 11% 140.6 247.9 0.9 204.4 0.8 18% 11%
18th Ave 20.5 220.0 0.8 177.7 0.7 19% 12% 20.5 220.0 0.8 177.7 0.7 19% 12%
19th Ave 107.7 235.3 0.9 190.6 0.7 19% 13% 107.7 235.3 0.9 190.6 0.7 19% 13%
21/41 Interchange 36.9 324.4 0.8 281.1 0.8 13% 9% 36.9 324.4 0.8 281.1 0.8 13% 9%
24th Ave 102.8 304.2 0.8 244.0 0.7 20% 14% 102.8 304.2 0.8 244.0 0.7 20% 14%
3rd Ave 49.1 403.7 0.9 329.5 0.8 18% 12% 49.1 398.9 0.9 329.5 0.8 17% 12%
4th Ave 12.0 476.4 0.9 476.4 0.9 0% 0% 12.0 476.4 0.9 476.4 0.9 0% 0%
6th Ave 8.8 435.3 1.0 435.3 1.0 0% 0% 8.8 435.3 1.0 435.3 1.0 0% 0%
Alpine Ct 9.2 224.5 0.8 179.2 0.7 20% 12% 9.2 224.5 0.8 179.2 0.7 20% 12%
Anchorage Ct 467.3 337.3 0.9 236.3 0.7 30% 22% 476.2 331.8 0.9 232.5 0.7 30% 22%
Asylum Point 61.0 390.5 0.9 390.5 0.9 0% 0% 89.6 281.2 0.7 281.2 0.7 0% 0%
Babbitz Ave 4.8 239.5 0.9 174.5 0.7 27% 18% 4.8 239.5 0.9 174.5 0.7 27% 18%
Baldwin Ave 124.2 256.4 0.9 190.1 0.7 26% 17% 124.2 256.4 0.9 190.1 0.7 26% 17%
Bavarian Ct 8.5 207.2 0.8 180.6 0.7 13% 8% 8.5 207.2 0.8 180.6 0.7 13% 8%
Bay St 37.7 313.4 1.0 249.4 0.8 20% 15% 37.7 313.4 1.0 249.4 0.8 20% 15%
Blackhawk St 46.5 343.9 1.0 302.5 0.9 12% 6% 46.5 343.0 1.0 302.5 0.9 12% 6%
Bowen St 79.3 265.3 0.9 211.4 0.8 20% 13% 79.3 265.3 0.9 211.4 0.8 20% 13%
Broad St 35.1 366.0 1.0 313.4 0.9 14% 9% 35.1 366.0 1.0 313.4 0.9 14% 9%
Campbell Creek 1128.5 350.5 0.9 168.0 0.6 52% 35% 1167.1 342.7 0.9 163.2 0.6 52% 36%
Ceape Ave 32.4 247.7 0.9 197.0 0.8 20% 13% 32.4 247.7 0.9 197.0 0.8 20% 13%
Chestnut St 41.3 177.6 0.7 146.8 0.6 17% 10% 41.3 177.6 0.7 146.8 0.6 17% 10%
Cliffview Ct Island 10.0 209.7 0.8 188.8 0.8 10% 6% 10.0 209.7 0.8 188.8 0.8 10% 6%
Court St 23.8 389.7 1.0 302.3 0.9 22% 14% 23.8 389.7 1.0 302.3 0.9 22% 14%
Dawes St 44.4 398.1 1.0 315.3 0.8 21% 14% 44.4 392.7 1.0 315.3 0.8 20% 14%
Division St 211.7 351.6 1.0 251.3 0.8 29% 20% 211.7 346.8 1.0 251.3 0.8 28% 20%
Doemel St 31.8 217.2 0.8 169.8 0.7 22% 14% 31.8 217.2 0.8 169.8 0.7 22% 14%
Dove St 1.6 419.8 1.0 336.1 0.9 20% 14% 1.6 419.8 1.0 336.1 0.9 20% 14%
East Murdock Ave 26.7 211.9 0.8 169.9 0.7 20% 12% 26.7 211.9 0.8 169.9 0.7 20% 12%
East New York Ave 51.7 237.3 0.9 191.9 0.8 19% 12% 51.7 237.3 0.9 191.9 0.8 19% 12%
Percent Reduction
Area
MS4
Area
TMDL
Watershed Existing LoadBase LoadExisting LoadBase Load Percent Reduction
December 2014 Appendix B.xlsx
Appendix B
City of Oshkosh
Pollutant Loads by Watershed
TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP
(lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr)
Percent Reduction
Area
MS4
Area
TMDL
Watershed Existing LoadBase LoadExisting LoadBase Load Percent Reduction
East Snell Rd 502.6 181.8 0.7 61.4 0.4 66% 42% 530.1 174.9 0.7 59.2 0.4 66% 42%
Edgewood Lane 78.4 237.2 0.8 115.5 0.5 51% 36% 120.1 190.9 0.7 103.3 0.5 46% 32%
Eveline St 19.8 207.4 0.8 187.3 0.8 10% 6% 19.8 207.4 0.8 187.3 0.8 10% 6%
Fairview St 16.4 212.0 0.8 181.6 0.7 14% 9% 16.4 212.0 0.8 181.6 0.7 14% 9%
Fernau Ave 477.6 416.5 0.9 325.1 0.7 22% 22% 544.6 393.9 0.9 298.4 0.7 24% 22%
Frankfort St 21.6 201.9 0.8 166.5 0.7 18% 11% 21.6 201.9 0.8 166.5 0.7 18% 11%
Gallups/Merritts Creek 475.5 384.4 0.8 265.2 0.6 31% 27% 544.1 342.0 0.8 233.9 0.5 32% 28%
Glatz Creek 1342.6 178.2 0.6 109.2 0.3 39% 42% 1440.4 174.8 0.6 107.4 0.3 39% 42%
Green Valley Rd 518.1 341.2 0.9 247.4 0.7 27% 21% 1038.7 197.0 0.6 147.2 0.5 25% 18%
Greenwood Ct 4.7 249.3 0.9 213.3 0.8 14% 10% 4.7 249.3 0.9 213.3 0.8 14% 10%
Hickory Lane 34.1 196.1 0.8 134.7 0.6 31% 27% 40.5 172.8 0.7 120.9 0.5 30% 25%
Honey Creek 0.0 390.5 0.9 390.5 0.9 0% 0% 0.0 390.5 0.9 390.5 0.9 0% 0%
Irving Ave 86.0 229.9 0.8 173.6 0.7 24% 16% 86.0 229.9 0.8 173.6 0.7 24% 16%
Johnson Ave 187.9 276.9 0.8 222.3 0.6 20% 21% 187.9 276.9 0.8 222.3 0.6 20% 21%
Kewaunee St 3.3 331.4 0.9 233.4 0.7 30% 23% 3.3 331.4 0.9 233.4 0.7 30% 23%
Lake Shore Golf Course 123.9 146.3 0.6 145.1 0.6 1% 0% 123.9 146.3 0.6 145.1 0.6 1% 0%
Lake St 7.8 211.0 0.8 180.7 0.7 14% 9% 7.8 211.0 0.8 180.7 0.7 14% 9%
Lakeview Cemetary 46.3 134.3 0.6 132.3 0.6 2% 1% 46.3 134.3 0.6 132.3 0.6 2% 1%
Lawndale St 8.9 185.3 0.7 148.5 0.6 20% 12% 8.9 185.3 0.7 148.5 0.6 20% 12%
Leeward Ct 17.5 387.2 0.9 336.1 0.8 13% 8% 17.5 387.2 0.9 336.1 0.8 13% 8%
Legion Place 1.3 219.5 0.8 199.5 0.8 9% 6% 1.3 219.5 0.8 199.5 0.8 9% 6%
Libbey Ave 410.0 303.5 0.9 231.3 0.7 24% 19% 417.6 298.9 0.9 227.7 0.7 24% 19%
Lincoln Ave 18.9 246.9 0.9 200.7 0.8 19% 12% 18.9 246.9 0.9 200.7 0.8 19% 12%
Linde St 14.9 123.7 0.6 111.9 0.5 10% 5% 14.9 123.7 0.6 111.9 0.5 10% 5%
Melvin Ave 110.8 248.9 0.9 174.2 0.7 30% 21% 110.8 248.9 0.9 174.2 0.7 30% 21%
Menominee Park
Central 12.8 125.5 0.6 113.2 0.5 10% 5% 12.8 125.5 0.6 113.2 0.5 10% 5%
Menominee Park
South 7.8 115.3 0.5 108.0 0.5 6% 3% 7.8 115.3 0.5 108.0 0.5 6% 3%
Merritt Ave 63.9 292.7 0.9 234.3 0.7 20% 13% 63.9 292.7 0.9 234.3 0.7 20% 13%
Mill St 10.2 324.8 1.0 265.0 0.9 18% 12% 10.2 324.8 1.0 265.0 0.9 18% 12%
December 2014 Appendix B.xlsx
Appendix B
City of Oshkosh
Pollutant Loads by Watershed
TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP
(lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr)
Percent Reduction
Area
MS4
Area
TMDL
Watershed Existing LoadBase LoadExisting LoadBase Load Percent Reduction
Minnesota St 13.3 510.8 0.9 469.2 0.9 8% 5% 13.3 510.8 0.9 469.2 0.9 8% 5%
N/A 94.2 315.0 0.8 306.5 0.8 3% 2% 96.9 307.4 0.8 299.2 0.8 3% 2%
Nebraska St 56.3 337.5 1.0 272.1 0.8 19% 12% 56.3 333.2 1.0 272.1 0.8 18% 12%
Neenah Slough 35.1 124.7 0.6 124.7 0.6 0% 0% 35.1 124.7 0.6 124.7 0.6 0% 0%
Nevada Ave 94.7 231.9 0.8 171.6 0.7 26% 17% 94.7 231.9 0.8 171.6 0.7 26% 17%
Nicolet Ave 189.6 417.4 0.9 341.0 0.8 18% 13% 199.8 398.6 0.8 325.3 0.7 18% 13%
North Main St 45.7 390.0 1.0 280.4 0.8 28% 19% 45.7 390.0 1.0 280.4 0.8 28% 19%
North Sawyer St 141.5 293.0 0.9 258.9 0.8 12% 8% 141.5 293.0 0.9 258.9 0.8 12% 8%
Oak St 21.4 249.7 0.8 213.4 0.8 15% 9% 21.4 249.7 0.8 213.4 0.8 15% 9%
Ohio St 74.1 301.9 0.9 233.8 0.8 23% 15% 74.1 301.9 0.9 233.8 0.8 23% 15%
Omro Rd 117.1 437.7 1.0 174.2 0.5 60% 49% 137.6 426.9 1.0 167.8 0.5 61% 49%
Osceola St 139.2 296.1 1.0 228.7 0.8 23% 15% 139.2 294.5 1.0 228.7 0.8 22% 15%
Otter Ave 9.1 231.6 0.9 160.6 0.7 31% 21% 9.1 231.6 0.9 160.6 0.7 31% 21%
Packer Ave 126.8 211.6 0.8 187.7 0.7 11% 7% 126.8 211.6 0.8 187.7 0.7 11% 7%
Parkway 121.7 257.7 0.9 196.8 0.8 24% 15% 121.7 257.7 0.9 196.8 0.8 24% 15%
Pioneer Dr 25.7 342.2 0.8 301.1 0.7 12% 9% 25.7 342.2 0.8 301.1 0.7 12% 9%
Rahr Ave 5.8 196.3 0.8 158.5 0.7 19% 11% 5.8 196.3 0.8 158.5 0.7 19% 11%
Rainbow Park 41.6 214.9 0.8 199.2 0.7 7% 4% 41.6 214.9 0.8 199.2 0.7 7% 4%
Red Arrow Park 36.5 298.9 0.9 260.9 0.9 13% 7% 36.5 298.9 0.9 260.9 0.9 13% 7%
River Mill Rd 29.0 227.3 0.8 188.7 0.7 17% 11% 29.0 227.3 0.8 188.7 0.7 17% 11%
Riverside Cemetary 17.0 183.0 0.7 183.0 0.7 0% 0% 17.0 183.0 0.7 183.0 0.7 0% 0%
Sawyer Creek 2075.4 270.9 0.8 190.0 0.7 30% 21% 2298.3 275.3 0.8 203.1 0.7 26% 19%
Shangri La Point Rd 0.7 127.2 0.6 112.3 0.5 12% 12% 0.7 127.2 0.6 112.3 0.5 12% 12%
Sherman Rd South 134.9 265.4 0.7 79.7 0.3 70% 58% 141.5 255.1 0.7 77.8 0.3 70% 57%
Shorewood Dr
Penninsula 24.7 207.1 0.8 191.1 0.8 8% 5% 24.7 207.1 0.8 191.1 0.8 8% 5%
Siewert Trail 15.5 204.8 0.8 176.9 0.7 14% 8% 15.5 204.8 0.8 176.9 0.7 14% 8%
South Main St 19.1 367.4 0.9 306.7 0.8 17% 11% 19.1 363.1 0.9 306.7 0.8 16% 11%
Starboard Ct 16.9 281.1 0.9 240.9 0.8 14% 9% 16.9 281.1 0.9 240.9 0.8 14% 9%
Stillman Dr 102.1 445.4 0.8 372.5 0.7 16% 13% 147.5 327.7 0.7 272.2 0.6 17% 13%
Stringham Creek 802.5 334.5 0.9 258.1 0.7 23% 16% 809.6 332.0 0.9 256.1 0.7 23% 16%
Sunnyview Rd 96.5 295.9 0.9 249.7 0.7 16% 19% 125.7 240.2 0.7 201.9 0.6 16% 18%
Vine Ave 57.3 327.5 0.9 269.6 0.8 18% 14% 57.3 327.5 0.9 269.6 0.8 18% 14%
December 2014 Appendix B.xlsx
Appendix B
City of Oshkosh
Pollutant Loads by Watershed
TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP TSS TP
(lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr) (lbs/ac/yr)
Percent Reduction
Area
MS4
Area
TMDL
Watershed Existing LoadBase LoadExisting LoadBase Load Percent Reduction
Warren St 12.9 358.2 1.0 322.7 0.9 10% 5% 12.9 358.2 1.0 322.7 0.9 10% 5%
Washington Ave 27.7 248.3 0.8 200.8 0.7 19% 12% 27.7 248.3 0.8 200.8 0.7 19% 12%
Waugoo Ave 27.5 243.1 0.9 199.3 0.8 18% 11% 27.5 243.1 0.9 199.3 0.8 18% 11%
Welle Dr 3.2 274.3 0.9 214.1 0.7 22% 22% 3.2 274.3 0.9 214.1 0.7 22% 22%
West Algoma Park 3.4 274.0 1.0 220.7 0.8 19% 13% 3.4 274.0 1.0 220.7 0.8 19% 13%
West Murdock Ave 289.8 255.2 0.9 218.9 0.8 14% 9% 289.8 255.2 0.9 218.9 0.8 14% 9%
West New York Ave 72.4 272.5 0.9 218.4 0.8 20% 13% 72.4 272.5 0.9 218.4 0.8 20% 13%
West Snell Rd 44.6 334.6 0.9 70.2 0.2 79% 76% 223.4 128.1 0.5 68.2 0.3 47% 34%
White Swan Dr 10.8 207.8 0.8 177.1 0.7 15% 9% 10.8 207.8 0.8 177.1 0.7 15% 9%
Wilson Ave 64.2 199.0 0.8 179.2 0.7 10% 6% 64.2 199.0 0.8 179.2 0.7 10% 6%
Windward Ct Island 6.1 211.9 0.8 190.0 0.8 10% 6% 6.1 211.9 0.8 190.0 0.8 10% 6%
Winnebago Ave 25.0 251.0 0.9 206.7 0.8 18% 11% 25.0 251.0 0.9 206.7 0.8 18% 11%
Woodland Ave 51.0 376.4 0.9 333.5 0.8 11% 9% 51.0 376.4 0.9 333.5 0.8 11% 9%
December 2014 Appendix B.xlsx
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
Appendix C
Grass Swale Infiltration
Testing
1
Bartlein, Ashley
From:Glaser, Gus G - DNR <Gus.Glaser@Wisconsin.gov>
Sent:Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:28 AM
To:Burger, Caroline J.
Cc:Larson, Susan M - DNR; Bachhuber, Jim; Rabe, James E.
Subject:RE: City of Oshkosh Grass Swale Infiltration Testing Results
Caroline:
I agree with you, that would be the most accurate for predicting runoff and stay‐on.
Gus
From: Burger, Caroline J. [mailto:Caroline.Burger@aecom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Glaser, Gus G - DNR
Cc: Larson, Susan M - DNR; Bachhuber, Jim; Rabe, James E.
Subject: RE: City of Oshkosh Grass Swale Infiltration Testing Results
Hi Gus,
I looked into what you suggested and I don’t know how much sense that makes. With that option, we’d use
0.29 in/hr for three of the areas and 7.64 in/hr for the other seven areas.
Because the results are so variable, I’d like to propose we use an individual rate for each of the ten areas. The
model files are already set up using the specific swale geometry (side slope, bottom width, etc) for each test
site, so adding an individual infiltration rate to each would not be too much additional effort.
What do you think of that proposal?
Thanks,
Caroline Burger, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
AECOM Water
D 608.828.8146
M 608.957.9430
caroline.burger@aecom.com
AECOM
1350 Deming Way, Suite 100
Middleton, WI 53562
T 608.836.9800 F 608.836.9767
www.aecom.com
From: Glaser, Gus G - DNR [mailto:Gus.Glaser@Wisconsin.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:03 PM
To: Burger, Caroline J.
Cc: Larson, Susan M - DNR
Subject: FW: City of Oshkosh Grass Swale Infiltration Testing Results
Caroline:
2
Group the City of Oshkosh infiltration test results into two Groups, Group (1) Areas with less than 1 in/hr and
Group (2) Areas with greater than 1/in/hr, calculate a geometric mean rate for each group, assign rates to
appropriate areas of the City. You will essentially have two rates for the City a high and a low.
Given that there are some areas with less than 1 in/hr of infiltration, I believe that in reality there will be some
areas where most runoff entering swales will reach waters of the state. Grouping into 2 rates for separate areas
will result in a more representative level of runoff being generated in the model.
Sincerely,
Gus Glaser
Gus Glaser, P.E.
Storm Water Engineer
Northeast Region
2984 Shawano Ave
Green Bay, WI 54313-6727
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
() phone: (920) 662-5461
() fax: (920) 662-5498
() e-mail: gus.glaser@wisconsin.gov
Find us at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/ or http://www.facebook.com/WIDNR
From: Burger, Caroline J. [mailto:Caroline.Burger@aecom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:36 PM
To: Larson, Susan M - DNR; Glaser, Gus G - DNR
Cc: Rabe, James E.; Bachhuber, Jim; Bartlein, Ashley
Subject: City of Oshkosh Grass Swale Infiltration Testing Results
Hello Sue and Gus,
Attached are the results for the infiltration testing of roadside swales we conducted in the City of
Oshkosh on October 3rd, and 4th, 2012. Also attached is a map showing the test locations in the
City. The data for each test site was tabulated and graphed based on the field measurements. We used
a “best fit line” for each graph and pulled the value for the static infiltration rate at 2 hours for each
site. The summary page shows both the static and dynamic infiltration rates for each test location, as
well as an average value for the City using the geometric mean calculation. We would like to use the
geometric mean value of 2.86 in/hr (dynamic rate) for the WinSLAMM modeling of all roadside swales
within the City of Oshkosh.
Gus – as you are well aware, some of the swales have very high infiltration rates. Some of the rates
were so high that they could not be measured. Where they could not be measured, we used the
highest, measurable rate from the testing. Is this an acceptable approach?
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Additionally, if you would like to have a
conference call to discuss these results please let me know and I will set one up.
Thank you,
3
Caroline Burger, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
AECOM Water
D 608.828.8146
M 608.514.2586
caroline.burger@aecom.com
AECOM
1350 Deming Way, Suite 100
Middleton, WI 53562
T 608.836.9800 F 608.836.9767
www.aecom.com
1
Bartlein, Ashley
From:Burger, Caroline J.
Sent:Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:34 PM
To:'susan.larson@wisconsin.gov'; 'Glaser, Gus G - DNR'
Cc:'Rabe, James E.'; Bachhuber, Jim; Bartlein, Ashley
Subject:City of Oshkosh Grass Swale Infiltration Testing Results
Attachments:Oshkosh Infiltration Rate Testing Results.pdf; Oshkosh Infiltation Testing Locations
34x44.pdf
Hello Sue and Gus,
Attached are the results for the infiltration testing of roadside swales we conducted in the City of Oshkosh on October
3rd, and 4th, 2012. Also attached is a map showing the test locations in the City. The data for each test site was
tabulated and graphed based on the field measurements. We used a “best fit line” for each graph and pulled the value
for the static infiltration rate at 2 hours for each site. The summary page shows both the static and dynamic infiltration
rates for each test location, as well as an average value for the City using the geometric mean calculation. We would like
to use the geometric mean value of 2.86 in/hr (dynamic rate) for the WinSLAMM modeling of all roadside swales within
the City of Oshkosh.
Gus – as you are well aware, some of the swales have very high infiltration rates. Some of the rates were so high that
they could not be measured. Where they could not be measured, we used the highest, measurable rate from the
testing. Is this an acceptable approach?
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Additionally, if you would like to have a conference call
to discuss these results please let me know and I will set one up.
Thank you,
Caroline Burger, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
AECOM Water
D 608.828.8146
M 608.514.2586
caroline.burger@aecom.com
AECOM
1350 Deming Way, Suite 100
Middleton, WI 53562
T 608.836.9800 F 608.836.9767
www.aecom.com
City of Oshkosh Infiltration Testing: Summary
Project No. 60268145
Location Test #Static Infiltration
Rate* (in/hr)
Dynamic Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
City Average**
Dynamic Rate (in/hr)
Edgewood Lane #1*** 34.30 17.15
STH 41 (north of STH 45) #2 0.76 0.38
Olson Ave #3 4.53 2.27
Sherman Rd #4 3.95 1.98
Hwy 41 and Witzel Ave #5 0.24 0.12
9th Ave #6 34.30 17.15
S. Washburn St #7 1.05 0.53
Poberezny Rd #8 12.50 6.25
W. 28th Ave #9*** 34.30 17.15
STH 45 #10 21.60 10.80
*Value from best fit curve at 2 hours
**Geometric Mean
***Infiltration rates at test locations #1 and #9 were too high to measure with available
equipment. The infiltration rate at these locations was set to that of test location #6,
which had a high, but measurable, infiltration rate.
2.86
06/14/2012 Infiltration Rate Field Sheet_RESULTS rev1_JJOA.xls
Site:City of Oshkosh #1
Date:10/4/2012
Time:8:00 AM
Conditions:Sunny; 45 deg
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:200 gal.
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.00 0:34:00
3.00 0:34:10 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:34:05 360.00
2.00 0:34:20 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:34:15 360.00
4.00 0:34:45
3.00 0:34:55 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:34:50 360.00
2.00 0:35:05 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:35:00 360.00
4.00 0:35:30
3.00 0:35:40 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:35:35 360.00
2.00 0:35:50 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:35:45 360.00
4.00 0:36:05
2.00 0:36:25 00:20 2.00 00:10 0:36:15 360.00
4.00 0:47:35
2.00 0:47:55 00:20 2.00 00:10 0:47:45 360.00
4.00 0:48:15
3.00 0:48:30 00:15 1.00 00:07 0:48:22 240.00
2.00 0:48:40 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:48:35 360.00
4.00 0:49:10
3.00 0:49:20 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:49:15 360.00
2.00 0:49:35 00:15 1.00 00:07 0:49:28 240.00
4.00 0:49:55
2.00 0:50:20 00:25 2.00 00:13 0:50:08 288.00
4.00 0:50:35
3.00 0:50:45 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:50:40 360.00
2.00 0:51:00 00:15 1.00 00:07 0:50:52 240.00
4.00 0:51:35
2.00 0:52:00 00:25 2.00 00:13 0:51:48 288.00
4.00 0:52:55
2.00 0:53:20 00:25 2.00 00:13 0:53:08 288.00
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
11/18/2014
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.00 0:53:45
2.00 0:54:15 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:54:00 240.00
4.00 0:54:35
2.00 0:55:05 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:54:50 240.00
4.00 0:55:45
2.00 0:56:15 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:56:00 240.00
4.00 0:56:50
2.00 0:57:15 00:25 2.00 00:13 0:57:03 288.00
4.00 0:57:35
2.00 0:58:05 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:57:50 240.00
4.00 0:58:30
2.00 0:59:00 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:58:45 240.00
4.00 0:59:20
2.00 0:59:50 00:30 2.00 00:15 0:59:35 240.00
4.00 1:00:10
2.00 1:00:40 00:30 2.00 00:15 1:00:25 240.00
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = VERY HIGH (in/hr)
y = 24.76x-0.73
R² = 0.59
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oskhosh #1
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #2
Date:10/4/2012
Time:2:00 PM
Conditions:Sunny; 70s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:20 gal.
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
3.13 0:00:00
3.00 0:01:10 01:10 0.13 00:35 0:00:35 6.43
2.25 0:03:45 02:35 0.75 01:18 0:02:27 17.42
2.00 0:05:05 01:20 0.25 00:40 0:04:25 11.25
3.00 0:05:50
2.75 0:10:55 05:05 0.25 02:32 0:08:22 2.95
2.50 0:16:10 05:15 0.25 02:38 0:13:33 2.86
2.38 0:21:40 05:30 0.13 02:45 0:18:55 1.36
2.25 0:25:30 03:50 0.13 01:55 0:23:35 1.96
3.06 0:26:30
2.88 0:38:50 12:20 0.19 06:10 0:32:40 0.91
2.75 0:47:20 08:30 0.13 04:15 0:43:05 0.88
2.63 0:56:30 09:10 0.13 04:35 0:51:55 0.82
2.25 1:05:10 08:40 0.38 04:20 1:00:50 2.60
3.00 0:00:00
2.88 0:12:55 12:55 0.13 06:28 0:06:28 0.58
2.75 0:19:15 06:20 0.13 03:10 0:16:05 1.18
2.63 0:27:05 07:50 0.13 03:55 0:23:10 0.96
2.50 0:36:55 09:50 0.13 04:55 0:32:00 0.76
3.06 0:37:15
2.88 0:45:10 07:55 0.19 03:58 0:41:13 1.42
2.75 0:55:25 10:15 0.13 05:07 0:50:18 0.73
shaded cells in table are formulas
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 0.60 (in/hr)
11/18/2014
y = 0.19x-0.56
R² = 0.71
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #2
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #3
Date:10/4/2012
Time:10:35 AM
Conditions:Sunny; 60s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
3.50 0:00:00
3.00 0:00:15 00:15 0.50 00:08 0:00:08 120.00
2.00 0:00:45 00:30 1.00 00:15 0:00:30 120.00
3.50 0:01:10
3.00 0:01:25 00:15 0.50 00:08 0:01:18 120.00
2.50 0:01:50 00:25 0.50 00:12 0:01:38 72.00
1.75 0:02:15 00:25 0.75 00:12 0:02:02 108.00
3.50 0:02:40
3.00 0:03:05 00:25 0.50 00:13 0:02:53 72.00
2.50 0:03:40 00:35 0.50 00:17 0:03:23 51.43
1.88 0:04:25 00:45 0.63 00:23 0:04:03 50.00
3.50 0:05:45
2.88 0:08:10 02:25 0.63 01:12 0:06:57 15.52
2.75 0:10:35 02:25 0.13 01:13 0:09:22 3.10
2.00 0:12:00 01:25 0.75 00:42 0:11:18 31.76
3.88 0:13:15
3.25 0:16:45 03:30 0.63 01:45 0:15:00 10.71
2.63 0:20:50 04:05 0.63 02:02 0:18:48 9.18
2.00 0:24:55 04:05 0.63 02:02 0:22:52 9.18
3.88 0:25:40
3.38 0:28:45 03:05 0.50 01:33 0:27:12 9.73
3.00 0:31:10 02:25 0.38 01:12 0:29:58 9.31
2.88 0:33:35 02:25 0.13 01:12 0:32:23 3.10
2.38 0:35:50 02:15 0.50 01:07 0:34:43 13.33
2.00 0:38:40 02:50 0.38 01:25 0:37:15 7.94
4.00 0:39:00
3.50 0:43:55 04:55 0.50 02:27 0:41:28 6.10
3.00 0:49:15 05:20 0.50 02:40 0:46:35 5.63
2.50 0:54:15 05:00 0.50 02:30 0:51:45 6.00
2.00 1:00:00 05:45 0.50 02:53 0:57:08 5.22
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
11/18/2014
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.13 1:01:25
3.88 1:03:50 02:25 0.25 01:13 1:02:37 6.21
3.38 1:06:55 03:05 0.50 01:33 1:05:23 9.73
3.00 1:10:30 03:35 0.38 01:47 1:08:43 6.28
2.50 1:15:00 04:30 0.50 02:15 1:12:45 6.67
1.88 1:21:20 06:20 0.63 03:10 1:18:10 5.92
4.13 1:22:30
3.50 1:26:25 03:55 0.63 01:57 1:24:28 9.57
3.00 1:30:00 03:35 0.50 01:48 1:28:13 8.37
2.25 1:36:55 06:55 0.75 03:27 1:33:27 6.51
2.00 1:39:40 02:45 0.25 01:23 1:38:17 5.45
3.88 1:40:55
3.38 1:44:30 03:35 0.50 01:48 1:42:42 8.37
3.00 1:47:35 03:05 0.38 01:32 1:46:03 7.30
2.50 1:53:10 05:35 0.50 02:47 1:50:22 5.37
2.00 2:00:25 07:15 0.50 03:38 1:56:47 4.14
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 4.53 (in/hr)
y = 1.10x-0.57
R² = 0.78
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #3
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #4
Date:10/4/2012
Time:12:00 AM
Conditions:Sunny; 60s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:50 gal. over 18 minutes; 15 gal. during later 2 hour period
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.25 0:00:00
3.75 0:00:40 00:40 0.50 00:20 0:00:20 45.00
3.00 0:01:40 01:00 0.75 00:30 0:01:10 45.00
2.50 0:02:55 01:15 0.50 00:38 0:02:17 24.00
2.00 0:04:00 01:05 0.50 00:33 0:03:28 27.69
4.75 0:04:20
4.50 0:05:15 00:55 0.25 00:28 0:04:47 16.36
4.25 0:07:20 02:05 0.25 01:02 0:06:17 7.20
4.00 0:09:40 02:20 0.25 01:10 0:08:30 6.43
3.75 0:11:30 01:50 0.25 00:55 0:10:35 8.18
3.50 0:13:30 02:00 0.25 01:00 0:12:30 7.50
3.25 0:15:30 02:00 0.25 01:00 0:14:30 7.50
3.00 0:18:05 02:35 0.25 01:17 0:16:48 5.81
4.00 0:19:10
3.50 0:24:00 04:50 0.50 02:25 0:21:35 6.21
3.25 0:26:15 02:15 0.25 01:08 0:25:07 6.67
2.75 0:31:25 05:10 0.50 02:35 0:28:50 5.81
4.00 0:31:55
3.75 0:35:45 03:50 0.25 01:55 0:33:50 3.91
3.50 0:38:50 03:05 0.25 01:33 0:37:18 4.86
3.00 0:43:40 04:50 0.50 02:25 0:41:15 6.21
4.00 0:45:20
3.50 0:50:40 05:20 0.50 02:40 0:48:00 5.63
3.00 0:57:40 07:00 0.50 03:30 0:54:10 4.29
4.00 0:58:35
3.75 1:03:55 05:20 0.25 02:40 1:01:15 2.81
3.50 1:07:00 03:05 0.25 01:33 1:05:28 4.86
3.25 1:11:05 04:05 0.25 02:03 1:09:03 3.67
3.00 1:13:40 02:35 0.25 01:17 1:12:23 5.81
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
11/18/2014
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.13 1:16:00
3.75 1:18:45 02:45 0.38 01:23 1:17:23 8.18
3.25 1:24:45 06:00 0.50 03:00 1:21:45 5.00
3.00 1:26:55 02:10 0.25 01:05 1:25:50 6.92
4.13 1:27:45
3.75 1:32:05 04:20 0.38 02:10 1:29:55 5.19
3.50 1:34:05 02:00 0.25 01:00 1:33:05 7.50
3.25 1:36:45 02:40 0.25 01:20 1:35:25 5.62
3.00 1:40:40 03:55 0.25 01:57 1:38:42 3.83
4.50 1:41:30
4.00 1:46:45 05:15 0.50 02:38 1:44:07 5.71
3.75 1:50:05 03:20 0.25 01:40 1:48:25 4.50
3.50 1:53:55 03:50 0.25 01:55 1:52:00 3.91
3.25 1:56:20 02:25 0.25 01:13 1:55:07 6.21
3.00 2:00:05 03:45 0.25 01:53 1:58:13 4.00
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 3.95 (in/hr)
y = 1.50x-0.39
R² = 0.74
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #4
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #5
Date:10/3/2012
Time:11:00 AM
Conditions:Sunny; 70s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:195 gal.
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water
Level
Change
(in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
3.0 0:00:00
2.5 0:01:00 01:00 0.50 00:30 0:01:30 30.00
2.0 0:01:35 00:35 0.50 00:18 0:01:53 51.43
3.0 0:02:20
2.8 0:03:25 01:05 0.25 00:33 0:03:58 13.85
2.0 0:03:45 00:20 0.75 00:10 0:03:55 135.00
1.3 0:04:25 00:40 0.75 00:20 0:04:45 67.50
3.0 0:04:50
2.5 0:05:35 00:45 0.50 00:23 0:05:57 40.00
2.0 0:06:25 00:50 0.50 00:25 0:06:50 36.00
3.0 0:07:40
2.0 0:08:35 00:55 1.00 00:28 0:09:03 65.45
3.0 0:10:05
2.0 0:11:20 01:15 1.00 00:38 0:11:58 48.00
3.3 0:12:40
3.0 0:13:00 00:20 0.25 00:10 0:13:10 45.00
2.5 0:14:15 01:15 0.50 00:37 0:14:52 24.00
3.5 0:15:45
2.8 0:16:35 00:50 0.75 00:25 0:17:00 54.00
2.0 0:17:20 00:45 0.75 00:23 0:17:42 60.00
3.5 0:18:50
3.0 0:19:35 00:45 0.50 00:23 0:19:58 40.00
2.5 0:20:20 00:45 0.50 00:22 0:20:42 40.00
2.0 0:21:00 00:40 0.50 00:20 0:21:20 45.00
4.0 0:22:50
3.5 0:23:50 01:00 0.50 00:30 0:24:20 30.00
3.0 0:24:05 00:15 0.50 00:07 0:24:12 120.00
2.5 0:24:40 00:35 0.50 00:18 0:24:58 51.43
2.0 0:25:20 00:40 0.50 00:20 0:25:40 45.00
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water
Level
Change
(in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
3.0 0:26:20
2.5 0:27:20 01:00 0.50 00:30 0:27:50 30.00
2.0 0:28:05 00:45 0.50 00:23 0:28:28 40.00
4.0 0:29:30
3.0 0:30:40 01:10 1.00 00:35 0:31:15 51.43
2.0 0:31:40 01:00 1.00 00:30 0:32:10 60.00
3.3 0:33:40
3.0 0:34:25 00:45 0.25 00:22 0:34:47 20.00
2.5 0:35:25 01:00 0.50 00:30 0:35:55 30.00
2.0 0:36:00 00:35 0.50 00:17 0:36:17 51.43
3.5 0:37:50
2.5 0:39:40 01:50 1.00 00:55 0:40:35 32.73
1.5 0:40:05 00:25 1.00 00:13 0:40:18 144.00
3.0 0:42:25
2.5 0:43:10 00:45 0.50 00:23 0:43:32 40.00
2.0 0:44:00 00:50 0.50 00:25 0:44:25 36.00
3.8 0:45:20
2.5 0:48:00 02:40 1.25 01:20 0:49:20 28.13
2.0 0:49:05 01:05 0.50 00:33 0:49:38 27.69
3.8 0:50:10
3.0 0:51:10 01:00 0.75 00:30 0:51:40 45.00
2.3 0:52:40 01:30 0.75 00:45 0:53:25 30.00
4.0 0:54:20
3.0 0:55:35 01:15 1.00 00:37 0:56:13 48.00
2.5 0:56:40 01:05 0.50 00:33 0:57:13 27.69
2.0 0:57:30 00:50 0.50 00:25 0:57:55 36.00
4.0 0:59:10
3.5 0:59:55 00:45 0.50 00:23 1:00:18 40.00
3.0 1:01:20 01:25 0.50 00:42 1:02:03 21.18
2.8 1:02:00 00:40 0.25 00:20 1:02:20 22.50
2.5 1:02:45 00:45 0.25 00:22 1:03:08 20.00
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 34.3 (in/hr)
y = 26.79x-0.10
R² = 0.04
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #5
Site:City of Oshkosh #6
Date:10/3/2012
Time:9:00 AM
Conditions:Cloudy; 50s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:10 gal.
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.00 0:00:00
3.88 0:01:20 01:20 0.13 00:40 0:00:40 5.63
3.75 0:04:25 03:05 0.13 01:33 0:02:53 2.43
3.63 0:16:10 11:45 0.13 05:53 0:10:18 0.64
4.06 0:17:00
4.00 0:27:45 10:45 0.06 05:23 0:22:23 0.35
3.93 0:38:10 10:25 0.08 05:12 0:32:57 0.43
3.88 0:47:20 09:10 0.05 04:35 0:42:45 0.33
3.81 0:57:40 10:20 0.06 05:10 0:52:30 0.36
4.06 0:59:00
4.00 1:10:10 11:10 0.06 05:35 1:04:35 0.34
3.94 1:27:45 17:35 0.06 08:47 1:18:58 0.21
3.88 1:35:05 07:20 0.06 03:40 1:31:25 0.51
3.81 1:46:20 11:15 0.06 05:37 1:40:42 0.33
3.75 1:56:30 10:10 0.06 05:05 1:51:25 0.37
shaded cells in table are formulas
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 0.24 (in/hr)
11/18/2014
y = 0.06x-0.56
R² = 0.86
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #6
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #7
Date:10/3/2012
Time:8:20 PM
Conditions:Foggy; 40s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
4.75 0:00:00
4.50 0:00:30 00:30 0.25 00:15 0:00:15 30.00
4.00 0:01:40 01:10 0.50 00:35 0:01:05 25.71
3.75 0:03:50 02:10 0.25 01:05 0:02:45 6.92
4.75 0:04:30
4.50 0:06:20 01:50 0.25 00:55 0:05:25 8.18
4.00 0:13:50 07:30 0.50 03:45 0:10:05 4.00
4.75 0:15:20
4.50 0:20:20 05:00 0.25 02:30 0:17:50 3.00
4.25 0:27:05 06:45 0.25 03:23 0:23:42 2.22
4.75 0:28:40
4.50 0:36:25 07:45 0.25 03:52 0:32:32 1.94
6.30 0:38:10
6.40 0:42:50 04:40 -0.10 02:20 0:40:30 1.29
6.50 0:46:10 03:20 -0.10 01:40 0:44:30 1.80
6.60 0:49:30 03:20 -0.10 01:40 0:47:50 1.80
6.00 0:50:20
6.10 0:55:20 05:00 -0.10 02:30 0:52:50 1.20
6.20 1:00:40 05:20 -0.10 02:40 0:58:00 1.13
6.30 1:06:30 05:50 -0.10 02:55 1:03:35 1.03
6.40 1:12:20 05:50 -0.10 02:55 1:09:25 1.03
6.50 1:16:40 04:20 -0.10 02:10 1:14:30 1.38
5.90 1:18:00
6.00 1:24:30 06:30 -0.10 03:15 1:21:15 0.92
6.10 1:27:10 02:40 -0.10 01:20 1:25:50 2.25
6.20 1:29:50 02:40 -0.10 01:20 1:28:30 2.25
6.30 1:34:10 04:20 -0.10 02:10 1:32:00 1.38
6.40 1:40:30 06:20 -0.10 03:10 1:37:20 0.95
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
11/18/2014
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
6.00 1:41:20
6.10 1:45:20 04:00 -0.10 02:00 1:43:20 1.50
6.20 1:48:45 03:25 -0.10 01:43 1:47:02 1.76
6.30 1:53:00 04:15 -0.10 02:08 1:50:52 1.41
6.40 1:58:20 05:20 -0.10 02:40 1:55:40 1.13
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 1.05 (in/hr)
y = 0.26x-0.56
R² = 0.89
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #7
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #8
Date:10/3/2012
Time:2:00 PM
Conditions:Sunny; 70s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:
Water Level
(in)Time (hh:mm:ss)Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
3.50 0:00:00
2.00 0:01:25 01:25 1.50 00:43 0:00:43 63.53
1.50 0:02:45 01:20 0.50 00:40 0:02:05 22.50
3.50 0:03:05
3.00 0:04:20 01:15 0.50 00:37 0:03:42 24.00
2.50 0:05:35 01:15 0.50 00:38 0:04:57 24.00
2.00 0:06:50 01:15 0.50 00:38 0:06:12 24.00
3.50 0:07:30
3.00 0:08:50 01:20 0.50 00:40 0:08:10 22.50
2.50 0:10:50 02:00 0.50 01:00 0:09:50 15.00
2.25 0:11:55 01:05 0.25 00:32 0:11:22 13.85
3.50 0:13:05
3.00 0:15:15 02:10 0.50 01:05 0:14:10 13.85
2.50 0:17:10 01:55 0.50 00:58 0:16:12 15.65
2.00 0:20:35 03:25 0.50 01:42 0:18:52 8.78
3.50 0:21:20
3.00 0:24:10 02:50 0.50 01:25 0:22:45 10.59
2.50 0:27:00 02:50 0.50 01:25 0:25:35 10.59
3.50 0:28:10
2.75 0:30:55 02:45 0.75 01:23 0:29:32 16.36
2.00 0:34:35 03:40 0.75 01:50 0:32:45 12.27
3.50 0:35:40
2.75 0:39:05 03:25 0.75 01:43 0:37:22 13.17
2.25 0:42:40 03:35 0.50 01:47 0:40:52 8.37
3.00 0:44:05
2.50 0:49:20 05:15 0.50 02:37 0:46:43 5.71
2.00 0:52:40 03:20 0.50 01:40 0:51:00 9.00
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
11/18/2014
Water Level
(in)Time (hh:mm:ss)Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
3.00 0:56:20 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
2.50 0:59:15 02:55 0.50 01:28 0:57:48 10.29
2.25 1:02:05 02:50 0.25 01:25 1:00:40 5.29
3.50 1:02:50
2.75 1:06:40 03:50 0.75 01:55 1:04:45 11.74
2.25 1:09:00 02:20 0.50 01:10 1:07:50 12.86
3.50 1:10:15
3.00 1:14:05 03:50 0.50 01:55 1:12:10 7.83
2.50 1:18:05 04:00 0.50 02:00 1:16:05 7.50
2.00 1:21:40 03:35 0.50 01:48 1:19:53 8.37
3.50 1:22:30
3.00 1:25:25 02:55 0.50 01:28 1:23:58 10.29
2.50 1:29:00 03:35 0.50 01:48 1:27:13 8.37
3.50 1:30:30
3.00 1:34:25 03:55 0.50 01:57 1:32:27 7.66
2.50 1:38:00 03:35 0.50 01:47 1:36:12 8.37
2.25 1:42:50 04:50 0.25 02:25 1:40:25 3.10
3.50 1:43:15
3.00 1:46:40 03:25 0.50 01:43 1:44:57 8.78
2.25 1:52:00 05:20 0.75 02:40 1:49:20 8.44
3.50 1:53:00
3.00 1:55:10 02:10 0.50 01:05 1:54:05 13.85
2.50 1:58:05 02:55 0.50 01:28 1:56:37 10.29
2.25 2:00:25 02:20 0.25 01:10 1:59:15 6.43
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 12.49 (in/hr)
11/18/2014
y = 7.79x-0.19
R² = 0.28
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #8
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #9
Date:10/3/2012
Time:2:30 PM
Conditions:Sunny; 70s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:180 gal.
Water Level
(in)Time (hh:mm:ss)Change in Time
(mm:ss)
Water Level
Change (in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hr)
shaded cells in table are formulas
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = VERY HIGH (in/hr)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #9
The infiltration rate at site #9 was too high to be measured. On four separate occasions within 2.5
hours, 45 gallons were added to the infiltrometer (with approximately 20 minutes betwen each
filling used to fill up water tanks and return to the site) . The time to infiltrate the 45 gallons was
3:10, 5:00, 13:10, and 16:10, respectively. No steady‐state measurements could be taken due to
the high infiltration rates.
11/18/2014
Site:City of Oshkosh #10
Date:10/3/2012
Time:5:00 PM
Conditions:Sunny; 60s
Field Staff:T. Jacobson, D. Joachim
Amount / Date of Last Rain:
Equipment Used:12" / 24" PVC Rings
Amount of Water Used:
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in
Time (mm:ss)
Water
Level
Change
(in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
4.0 0:00:00
2.0 0:00:15 00:15 2.00 00:08 0:00:23 480.00
1.0 0:00:25 00:10 1.00 00:05 0:00:30 360.00
4.0 0:01:30
3.0 0:02:10 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:02:30 90.00
2.5 0:02:50 00:40 0.50 00:20 0:03:10 45.00
3.5 0:03:05
3.0 0:03:30 00:25 0.50 00:12 0:03:42 72.00
2.0 0:04:15 00:45 1.00 00:23 0:04:37 80.00
3.5 0:04:40
3.0 0:05:20 00:40 0.50 00:20 0:05:40 45.00
2.0 0:06:15 00:55 1.00 00:28 0:06:43 65.45
3.8 0:07:00
3.0 0:07:45 00:45 0.75 00:23 0:08:08 60.00
2.5 0:08:05 00:20 0.50 00:10 0:08:15 90.00
3.5 0:08:55
2.5 0:09:40 00:45 1.00 00:22 0:10:02 80.00
3.5 0:10:10
2.8 0:10:40 00:30 0.75 00:15 0:10:55 90.00
2.0 0:11:10 00:30 0.75 00:15 0:11:25 90.00
3.5 0:12:05
2.8 0:12:30 00:25 0.75 00:12 0:12:43 108.00
2.0 0:12:55 00:25 0.75 00:12 0:13:07 108.00
4.0 0:13:20
3.0 0:14:10 00:50 1.00 00:25 0:14:35 72.00
2.0 0:15:00 00:50 1.00 00:25 0:15:25 72.00
Double-Ring Infiltration Rate Test Field Sheet
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in
Time (mm:ss)
Water
Level
Change
(in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
4.0 0:15:50
3.0 0:16:30 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:16:50 90.00
2.0 0:17:10 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:17:30 90.00
4.0 0:17:40
3.0 0:18:25 00:45 1.00 00:23 0:18:48 80.00
2.0 0:19:30 01:05 1.00 00:33 0:20:03 55.38
4.3 0:20:45
3.5 0:21:20 00:35 0.75 00:17 0:21:37 77.14
3.0 0:21:40 00:20 0.50 00:10 0:21:50 90.00
2.0 0:22:20 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:22:40 90.00
4.5 0:23:10
3.5 0:23:50 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:24:10 90.00
2.3 0:25:05 01:15 1.25 00:38 0:25:42 60.00
1.5 0:26:00 00:55 0.75 00:28 0:26:28 49.09
4.0 0:26:30
3.0 0:27:25 00:55 1.00 00:28 0:27:53 65.45
2.0 0:28:45 01:20 1.00 00:40 0:29:25 45.00
4.5 0:29:30
3.5 0:30:10 00:40 1.00 00:20 0:30:30 90.00
2.5 0:31:40 01:30 1.00 00:45 0:32:25 40.00
4.5 0:32:10
3.5 0:33:30 01:20 1.00 00:40 0:34:10 45.00
2.5 0:34:50 01:20 1.00 00:40 0:35:30 45.00
4.5 0:35:25
3.5 0:36:45 01:20 1.00 00:40 0:37:25 45.00
2.8 0:38:05 01:20 0.75 00:40 0:38:45 33.75
2.0 0:39:55 01:50 0.75 00:55 0:40:50 24.55
4.5 0:40:25
3.5 0:41:40 01:15 1.00 00:38 0:42:18 48.00
3.0 0:43:15 01:35 0.50 00:48 0:44:02 18.95
2.5 0:44:40 01:25 0.50 00:42 0:45:22 21.18
2.0 0:45:55 01:15 0.50 00:38 0:46:33 24.00
4.0 0:47:00
3.0 0:49:15 02:15 1.00 01:07 0:50:22 26.67
2.0 0:52:25 03:10 1.00 01:35 0:54:00 18.95
4.8 0:53:30
4.0 0:54:10 00:40 0.75 00:20 0:54:30 67.50
3.0 0:56:10 02:00 1.00 01:00 0:57:10 30.00
2.0 0:58:15 02:05 1.00 01:02 0:59:18 28.80
Water Level
(in)
Time
(hh:mm:ss)
Change in
Time (mm:ss)
Water
Level
Change
(in)
Time
Interval
Midpoint
(mm:ss)
Cumulative
Time to
Midpoint
(hh:mm:ss)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
4.0 0:58:45
3.0 1:01:05 02:20 1.00 01:10 1:02:15 25.71
2.5 1:03:20 02:15 0.50 01:08 1:04:28 13.33
4.0 1:03:45
3.0 1:06:20 02:35 1.00 01:17 1:07:38 23.23
2.4 1:08:20 02:00 0.63 01:00 1:09:20 18.75
4.0 1:08:50
3.0 1:10:20 01:30 1.00 00:45 1:11:05 40.00
2.5 1:12:05 01:45 0.50 00:52 1:12:58 17.14
2.0 1:13:10 01:05 0.50 00:33 1:13:43 27.69
4.0 1:13:55
3.0 1:16:00 02:05 1.00 01:02 1:17:03 28.80
2.3 1:18:25 02:25 0.75 01:13 1:19:38 18.62
4.0 1:18:40
3.0 1:20:40 02:00 1.00 01:00 1:21:40 30.00
2.0 1:22:55 02:15 1.00 01:07 1:24:03 26.67
1.5 1:26:25 03:30 0.50 01:45 1:28:10 8.57
4.0 1:26:55
3.0 1:28:35 01:40 1.00 00:50 1:29:25 36.00
2.0 1:32:20 03:45 1.00 01:53 1:34:12 16.00
1.8 1:33:10 00:50 0.25 00:25 1:33:35 18.00
4.0 1:34:15
2.8 1:36:30 02:15 1.25 01:07 1:37:37 33.33
2.0 1:38:10 01:40 0.75 00:50 1:39:00 27.00
1.8 1:39:25 01:15 0.25 00:37 1:40:02 12.00
4.0 1:39:50
3.0 1:42:05 02:15 1.00 01:07 1:43:12 26.67
2.0 1:44:50 02:45 1.00 01:22 1:46:12 21.82
4.0 1:46:30
3.0 1:48:20 01:50 1.00 00:55 1:49:15 32.73
4.0 1:49:30
3.4 1:50:50 01:20 0.63 00:40 1:51:30 28.12
2.5 1:53:50 03:00 0.88 01:30 1:55:20 17.50
4.0 1:54:30
3.5 1:57:00 02:30 0.50 01:15 1:58:15 12.00
2.5 1:59:35 02:35 3.50 01:17 2:00:52 81.29
shaded cells in table are formulas
At 2 hours, Infiltration Rate = 21.6 (in/hr)
y = 6.40x-0.49
R² = 0.64
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
0:00 0:15 0:30 0:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
(
i
n
/
h
r
)
Time (min)
Infiltration Rate Plot - Oshkosh #5
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Test #9
Test #1
Test #3
Test #5
Test #6
Test #8
Test #2
Test #7
Test #4
Test #10
Aug 201260268145
L:\work\projects\60268145\400_Technical\403_GIS\Figures\InfiltrationTesting\Prop_Locations_Landuse.mxd
Proposed Infiltration Testing Locations
Land Use
Grass Swales
City of Oshkosh, WI
Fox Riv
e
r
0 1,250 2,500625
Feet
Legend
!(Infiltration Testing Locations
City Limits
Grass Swales
Soils
CLAY
SAND
SILT ¯
Test #9
Test #1
Test #3
Test #5
Test #6
Test #8
Test #2
Test #7
Test #4
Test #10
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
N
M
a
i
n
S
t
W 9th Ave
W 20th Ave
Or
e
g
o
n
S
t
Bo
w
e
n
S
t
CT
H
A
S
W
a
s
h
b
u
r
n
S
t
Alg
o
m
a
B
l
v
d
Witzel Ave
Ha
z
e
l
S
t
Oh
i
o
S
t
Vi
n
l
a
n
d
S
t
Gr
o
v
e
S
t
Ev
a
n
s
S
t
Kn
a
p
p
S
t
High
A
v
e
W Snell Rd
S
M
a
i
n
S
t
Wi
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
S
t
Io
w
a
S
t
W 5th AveW 6th AveS
K
o
e
l
l
e
r
S
t
W 18th Ave
Oa
k
S
t
STH 4
4
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
W South Park A
v
e
E CTH Y
Taft Ave
S
O
a
k
w
o
o
d
R
d
Gr
a
n
d
S
t
Ryf Rd
W 10th Ave
W 8th Ave
Do
t
y
S
t
Pearl A
v
e
STH 91
Otter Ave
W 11th Ave
W 19th Ave
W 17th Ave
W CTH Y
Mi
c
h
i
g
a
n
S
t
Do
v
e
S
t
Mi
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Ceape Ave
Ge
o
r
g
i
a
S
t
Merritt Ave
E Murdock Ave
Ste
a
r
n
s
D
r
Hug
h
e
s
S
t
Osborn
A
v
e
Waugoo Ave
Elm
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
W Linwood Ave
Mo
s
e
r
S
t
N
W
e
s
t
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
Un
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
S
t
E Nevada Ave
Congress Ave
Ha
w
k
S
t
N
K
o
e
l
l
e
r
S
t
W Murdock Ave
W Bent Ave
E Snell Rd
Mi
n
e
r
v
a
S
t
Ne
b
r
a
s
k
a
S
t
Sh
e
r
i
d
a
n
S
t
E Irving Ave
Atlas Ave
N
L
a
r
k
S
t
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
N
W
a
s
h
b
u
r
n
S
t
Sh
e
r
m
a
n
R
d
Scott Ave
S
W
e
s
t
h
a
v
e
n
D
r
W Fernau Ave
Ba
y
S
t
Washington Ave
W 16th Ave
W 15th Ave
W 14th Ave
Bo
y
d
S
t
Viola Ave
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
S
t
Id
a
h
o
S
t
W Waukau Ave
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
Menom
i
n
e
e
D
r
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
Do
e
m
e
l
S
t
Be
e
c
h
S
t
De
l
a
w
a
r
e
S
t
W New York Ave
E Parkway Ave
Mil
l
S
t
As
h
l
a
n
d
S
t
Bay S
h
o
r
e
D
r
Vine Ave
Ma
r
i
c
o
p
a
D
r
Oshkosh Ave
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
Southland Ave
Jo
s
s
l
y
n
S
t
Ch
e
r
r
y
S
t
Pierce Ave
Adams Ave
Li
b
e
r
t
y
S
t
Ar
i
z
o
n
a
S
t
W 4th Ave
Sp
r
u
c
e
S
t
School Ave
Cr
a
n
e
S
t
Cl
o
v
e
r
S
t
Po
w
e
r
s
S
t
On
t
a
r
i
o
S
t
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
T
r
l
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Wa
l
t
e
r
S
t
STH
2
6
Ea
s
t
m
a
n
S
t
Pio
n
e
e
r
D
r
Fon
d
D
u
L
a
c
R
d
We
s
t
e
r
n
S
t
Fo
x
F
i
r
e
D
r
Florida Ave
W 7th Ave
Ru
g
b
y
S
t
S
E
a
g
l
e
S
t
Abbey Ave
No
r
t
h
p
o
i
n
t
S
t
Olson Ave
Pl
y
m
o
u
t
h
S
t
E Custer Ave
S
S
a
w
y
e
r
S
t
Re
i
c
h
o
w
S
t
Coolidge Ave
Po
b
e
r
e
z
n
y
R
d
Allerto
n
D
r
Pu
n
h
o
q
u
a
S
t
W Irving AveRush Ave
W Lincoln Ave
La
k
e
S
t
Newport Ave
N Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
R
d
Al
l
e
y
N
S
a
w
y
e
r
S
t
(
2
)
Gr
a
c
e
l
a
n
d
D
r
Ro
s
a
l
i
a
S
t
Pla
n
e
v
i
e
w
D
r
N
E
a
g
l
e
S
t
W 23rd Ave
Br
a
d
l
e
y
S
t
Bau
m
a
n
S
t
Br
o
a
d
S
t
(
1
)
Winnebago Ave
Co
u
r
t
S
t
N
S
a
w
y
e
r
S
t
W Packer Ave
Nicolet Ave
Pa
r
k
s
i
d
e
D
r
Mo
u
n
t
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
Hickory Ln
E Melvin Ave
Harney Ave
Columbia Ave
Me
d
a
l
i
s
t
D
r
S
W
e
s
t
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
Fa
i
r
v
i
e
w
S
t
Village
L
n
N W
e
s
t
h
a
v
e
n
D
r
Badger
A
v
e
He
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
r
l
W 35th Ave
W Ripple Ave
Marion Rd
W 3rd Ave
Fa
b
r
y
S
t
W Smith Ave
Su
l
l
i
v
a
n
S
t
W 28th Ave
Fa
i
r
f
a
x
S
t
Patriot Ln
Ev
e
l
i
n
e
S
t
S
L
a
r
k
S
t
Mo
n
t
a
n
a
S
t
Wh
i
t
e
S
w
a
n
D
r
Li
l
a
c
S
t
Havenwood Dr
Sunnyview Rd
Tyler Ave
Rusc
h
f
i
e
l
d
D
r
Allen Ave
Bellfield
D
r
El
k
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
We
s
t
b
r
o
o
k
D
r
Gu
e
n
t
h
e
r
S
t
Pratt Trl E
W 24th Ave
Fo
s
t
e
r
S
t
Ph
e
a
s
a
n
t
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
Rain
b
o
w
D
r
Church
A
v
e
Cl
i
f
f
v
i
e
w
D
r
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
Rahr Ave
Sta
t
e
S
t
Dempsey
T
r
l
Ar
m
o
r
y
P
l
Huron Ave
Bu
r
d
i
c
k
S
t
Mi
t
c
h
e
l
l
S
t
Porter Ave
Ed
g
e
w
o
o
d
R
d
Sie
w
e
r
t
T
r
l
Fulton Ave
Ma
r
v
e
l
D
r
Westow
n
e
A
v
e
Omro Rd
Vet
e
r
a
n
s
T
r
l
Mallard Ave
We
s
t
e
r
n
D
r
W 12th Ave
Libbey Ave
Sh
a
r
r
a
t
t
D
r
Laager Ln
Bismarck Ave
Robin Ave
Mc
C
u
r
d
y
S
t
Be
r
n
h
e
i
m
S
t
Li
n
d
e
S
t
Daw
e
s
S
t
Christian Dr
Farmington Ave
Al
a
s
k
a
S
t
Mo
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
t
Cozy
L
n
Br
o
a
d
S
t
(
2
)
Ke
n
t
u
c
k
y
S
t
Mockingbird Way
Ti
m
o
t
h
y
T
r
l
E Smith Ave
Gl
o
b
a
l
P
k
w
y
Osce
o
l
a
S
t
E Packer Ave
Shad
o
w
L
n
Om
n
i
D
r
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Amherst Ave
Lo
g
a
n
D
r
Cu
m
b
e
r
l
a
n
d
T
r
l
Park Ridge Ave
W Gruenwald Ave
Stillman Dr
Prospect Ave
Ka
n
s
a
s
S
t
Capital Dr
W Melvin Ave
Sh
o
r
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
E Fernau Ave
E Lincoln Ave
Wo
o
d
s
t
o
c
k
S
t
Lo
c
u
s
t
S
t
Homestead Dr
Wy
l
d
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
Golden Ave
Rath Ln
Is
a
a
c
L
n
Su
m
m
e
r
s
e
t
W
a
y
Pr
a
t
t
T
r
l
Freedom Ave
W 25th Ave
Hi
c
k
o
r
y
S
t
Cr
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
D
r
Westwind Rd
Dale Ave
Gr
a
b
e
r
S
t
Sterling Ave
Starboard Ct
Faust Ave
Pickett Ave
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
Sa
w
t
e
l
l
C
t
Wi
n
d
s
o
r
S
t
Lamar Ave
Cleveland Ave
Babbitz Ave
Sum
m
i
t
A
v
e
Bavarian Ct
Windward Ct
Ripon
L
n
Leeward Ct
E Waukau Ave
Zacher Dr
Wh
e
a
t
f
i
e
l
d
W
a
y
Sto
n
e
y
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Eckardt Ct
Fe
r
n
a
u
C
t
E 9th Ave
Or
c
h
a
r
d
C
t
Myrna Jane Dr
E 8th Ave
Sawyer Creek Dr
Mark
e
t
S
t
Hollister Ave
Oxford Ave
Anchorage Ct
Ti
t
a
n
C
t
Co
m
e
t
S
t
Birch
L
n
W Custer Ave
Bacon Ave
Templeton Pl
Em
m
e
r
s
L
n
Hudson Ave
Erie Ave
High Oak Dr
Ju
d
y
L
e
e
D
r
Mc
K
i
n
l
e
y
S
t
Springmill Dr
Ja
c
k
t
a
r
R
d
Lo
u
i
s
e
C
t
Rockwe
l
l
A
v
e
Cam
d
e
n
L
n
Burnwood Dr
Pickett Rd
Ga
l
w
a
y
C
t
Zi
o
n
S
t
Union Ave
Fillmore Ave
Sennholz Ct
Saratoga Ave
Menard Dr
W 29th Ave
Maple Ave
Ha
r
v
e
s
t
C
t
So
d
a
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Viking
P
l
Go
s
s
C
t
La
m
p
e
r
t
S
t
Ka
i
t
l
y
n
n
D
r
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
W 4th Ave
N
E
a
g
l
e
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Al
l
e
y
Osborn Ave
Oa
k
S
t
Al
l
e
y
Omni Dr
STH 9
1
W Smith Ave
Oa
k
S
t
Mo
u
n
t
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
Mo
u
n
t
V
e
r
n
o
n
S
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Hick
o
r
y
L
n
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Br
o
a
d
S
t
(
1
)
Knapp St
Fa
i
r
v
i
e
w
S
t
E Custer Ave
Fo
n
d
D
u
L
a
c
R
d
Omro Rd
W 12th Ave
W Waukau Ave
Kn
a
p
p
S
t
Ne
b
r
a
s
k
a
S
t
Ma
s
o
n
S
t
W 7th Ave
W Waukau Ave
N
E
a
g
l
e
S
t
S
S
a
w
y
e
r
S
t
S
W
e
s
t
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
W Ripple Ave
L:\work\projects\60268145\400_Technical\403_GIS\Figures\InfiltrationTesting\Prop_Locations_Landuse.mxd
Fox Riv
e
r
0 1,250 2,500625
Feet
Nov. 201460268145
Proposed Infiltration Testing Locations
Land Use
Grass Swales
City of Oshkosh, WI
Legend
AGR
CEM
ISOLATED
PARK
RAIL
OSUD
OSUD_EX
AIR
HOSP
INST
SCH
UWO
LI
MI
LDR
HDRNA
HDRWA
MDNRA
MDRNA
MDRWA
MFRNA
MOBH
CDT
OFPK
SHOP
SCOM
SW POND
WTR
Open Space Industrial
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Water
Infiltration Testing Locations
Grass Swales
Municipal Limits
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 1 of 10
Test Site 1
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 2 of 10
Test Site 2
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 3 of 10
Test Site 3
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 4 of 10
Test Site 4
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 5 of 10
Test Site 5
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 6 of 10
Test Site 6
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 7 of 10
Test Site 7
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 8 of 10
Test Site 8
Test Site 9
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 9 of 10
Test Site 10
Swale Infiltration Testing Photograph Log
City of Oshkosh October, 2012
Page 10 of 10
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
Appendix D
Description of Wet Detention
Basins Considered for
Stormwater Pollution Control
Table D-1
City of Oshkosh
Status of Proposed BMPs from 2008 Plan for 2013 Plan Update
9 Sawyer Creek2 S Oakwood Dr Oakwood Rd New Basin Out Built
34 Campbell Creek S Westhaven Dr Westhaven Golf Course
- East Basin New Basin Out Replaced by other BMPS
35 Sawyer Creek2 S Westhaven Dr Westhaven Golf Course
- West Basin New Basin Out Rejected by Common Council
36 Libbey Ave / Nicolet
Ave N Main St Libby Ave/N Main St New Basin Proposed BMP Alternative Site was recommended - Wet
Detention Basin is within 5 year CIP.
18 Sawyer Creek2 2850 S Oakwood
Rd
Gambrinus Enterprises
Dry Basin Retrofit Out Replaced by other BMPS
28 Stringham Creek2 S Washburn St South Washburn/STH
44 New Basin Out -
22 Campbell Creek1 325 S Eagle St Tipler Jr High School New Basin Out Built
2 Sawyer Creek S Westhaven Dr Westhaven Golf Club -
Existing Pond Retro-fit Retrofit Out Replaced by other BMPS
30** 19th Ave 1942 S Main St Fugleberg Park & Boat
Landing New Basin Out
The watershed wsa studied, but a wet
detention basin is not feasible because of
storm sewer elevations and lake level.
**BMP not Proposed because it would require a stormwater lift station
BMP not proposed because it is part of another drainage area, These BMPs serve as an alternate location if other BMPs cannot be constructed
Proposed
BMP ID Subbasin Address Common Name Practice 2013 Status Reason Removed From Consideration in
2013 Plan
November 2014 Table 5-X Eval Matrix v2 -Table D-1.xls
Table D-2
City of Oshkosh
Potential BMP Sites Removed from Consideration after Initial Evaluation - Determined to be Not Feasible
Drainage
Area to BMP
Preliminary
TSS Load
Preliminary
Estimated
Control
Preliminary
Pollution
Control
(acres) (tons/yr) (%) (tons/yr)
14 Gallups/ Merritts Creek Bradley St
East of Bradley,
North of Waukau
Ave
New Basin 249 43.2 80 34.5
Basin would have inflow from a
navigable stream - WDNR typically does
not approve permits for on-line basins
Adjacent navigable channel; 4.5 ac permanent
pool; DNR resistance to taking low flows from
channel - want base flow in channel
19 Fernau Ave 2920 N Main St Fernau Ave Basin New Basin 377 55.7 80 44.6
Basin would have inflow from a
navigable stream - WDNR typically does
not approve permits for on-line basins
Adjacent navigable channel; 5.0 ac permanent
pool; probably DNR resistance to taking low
flows from channel - want base flow in channel
21 Stringham Creek1 1601 Knapp St Stringham Creek1
Basin Knapp St New Basin 60 7.9 80 6.3
Site is a closed landfill - would require
excavation of the landfill; Environmental
concern with excavating landfill.
Part of drainage area for BMP #4; Retired
landfill; 0.6 ac permanent pool; Option for
parcel to south of land fill - but would be next
to Elementary School
17 Glatz Greek1 1135 W 20th Ave Hilton Garden Inn
Dry Pond Retrofit 10 0.7 80 0.5
Removed because area is not included
in analyzed area; FAA would have
resistance to implementation of a wet
detention facility in close proximity to the
airport
Property not included in base load b/c airport
owned property; 0.2 ac permanent pool;
Airport against adjacent ponds
32 Irving Ave 1200 E Irving Ave Menominee Park
South New Basin 199 25.4 80 20.3
Lift station would be required; Storm
sewer is approximately 1.5-3 ft
submerged - thus site deemed not
feasible
Adjacent to lake; 1.9 ac permanent pool;
Sawdust Days location
32 East New York Ave &
Baldwin Ave 1200 E Irving Ave Menominee Park
North New Basin 199 25.4 80 20.3
Lift station would be required; Storm
sewer is approximately 3-5 ft submerged -
thus site deemed not feasible
Adjacent to lake; 1.7 ac permanent pool;
Neighborhood association objected to fishing
pier; Site also located near School - part of
site is currently used as athletic fields
24 Sawyer Creek4 613 N Eagle St Red Arrow Park New Basin 152 20.1 80 16.1
Landfill/excavation concerns, sanitary
sewer problems, and lift station
requirements all contribute to site being
removed from consideration
City park; 2.1 ac permanent pool: "Garbage
Hill" - aka landfill - permit/excavation issues;
submerged storm sewer system; need low
flow lift station; Large sanitary sewer also
located in area of proposed pond
12 Campbell Creek2 400 N Sawyer St Southland
Ave/Josslyn St New Basin 57 10.0 80 8.0
Lift Station would likely be needed; Land
acquisition cost estimated at $1 million;
Cost per ton removed estimated at
$225,000 - cost per ton removed deemed
too expensive
0.8 ac permanent pool; submerged storm
sewer pipes, Likely feasible only with a Low
Flow Lift Station
Proposed
BMP ID Subbasin Address Common Name CommentsPracticeReason Removed From Consideration
December 2014 Table 5-X Eval Matrix v2 -Table D-1.xls
Page 1 of 7
City of Oshkosh
Wet Stormwater Quality Basins Site Descriptions
Proposed Wet Basin Sites
Site Number: 4
Site Name: South Park Basin
Expansion
Practice: Existing Wet Basin
Expansion/Retro-fit
Subbasin: Stringham Creek1
Location: Northeast of
intersection of Georgia
Street and South Park
Street
Looking Northeast from Bridge
Description: Existing basin is located within park, currently three pools to the basin
with drop structures separating each pool, also significant erosion along
banks. Project would remove drop structures and increase the size of
the permanent pool. The proposed 6 acre permanent pool achieved an
estimated 69% TSS reduction (removal of 78 tons of TSS annually) and
55% TP reduction (removal of 323 lbs of TP annually). Basin would
serve a 718 acre mixed-use drainage area. A project in this location was
previously proposed as part of the Stringham Creek flood study and is
currently under study as part of the expanded Stringham Creek analysis
and as part of the South Park Master Plan. Basin would combine flood
control and pollution control goals.
Site Number: 6
Site Name: Washburn St/Westowne
Ave Basin
Practice: Existing Wet Basin
Expansion/Retro-fit
Subbasin: Omro Rd
Location: Northwest of intersection
of Westowne Avenue
and Washburn Street
Looking Southeast at Existing Basin
Description: An existing wet basin is located adjacent to a dry basin. This project
proposes to expand the wet basin by approximately 10,000 square feet to
include the area occupied by the dry basin. A drainage area of 77 acres
of commercial land would be served. It is estimated that the basin would
achieve an additional 0.5 ton reduction in TSS and 157 lbs in TP because
Page 2 of 7
of the expansion.
Site Number: 7
Site Name: Pheasant Creek Dry
Basin
Practice: Dry Basin Retro-fit
Subbasin: Sawyer Creek2
Location: Northeast of intersection
of Fairfax Drive and
Pheasant Creek Drive
Looking East from Pheasant Creek Dr
Description: Existing dry basin serving a drainage area of 69 acres of residential land
would be retro-fit to a wet detention basin with a 0.62 acre permanent
pool. A TSS pollution removal of 6 tons and 35 lbs of TP would be
achieved annually. Basin is located directly adjacent to residential back-
yard.
Site Number: 15
Site Name: Island View Estates Dry
Basin
Practice: Dry Basin Retro-fit
Subbasin: Sunnyview Rd North
Location: 4660 Sherman Road
Looking Northwest from Zacher Dr
Description: Existing dry basin serves an approved, but incomplete, residential
subdivision. This project would retro-fit the dry basin to achieve water
quality benefits. Basin would achieve an 80% TSS reduction and remove 2
tons of TSS and 11 lbs of TP annually.
Page 3 of 7
Site Number: 26
Site Name: Bowen Street
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Anchorage Ct
Location: Southwest of
intersection of Murdock
Avenue and Bowen
Street
Looking Southeast from Murdock Ave
Description: Wet basin would be located in vacant parcel east of existing grocery
store, and north of convenience store. There is an abandoned gas station
that could possibly be included, and could also cause contamination
concerns. Proposed basin would treat a 340 acre mixed use drainage
basin and achieve a 56% pollutant reduction. 23 tons of TSS and 135 lbs
of TP would be removed annually. A 4.5 acre permanent pool would be
needed to achieve 80% TSS reduction, this option estimates a
permanent pool of 1.1 acres could be created. Option: Combine Site #26-
1 and #26 into one basin to increase the pollutant removal.
Site Number: 29
Site Name: Oakwood & 20th / Fox
Tail Ln
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Sawyer Creek2
Location: North of Trager School
& Southwest Corner of
Intersection of 20th Ave
and Oakwood Rd
Looking West from end of Fox Tail Dr
Description: Wet basin would be located southwest of intersection of 20th Avenue and
Oakwood Road in vacant lot. Runoff from a 53 acre, primarily industrial
land use, drainage are would be treated by a 1.3 acre permanent pool.
Also, within the drainage basin a wet basin would be located north of
Trager School, next to Sawyer Creek. Basin would receive runoff from
154 acres of residential and school land uses. Potential conflicts with a
sanitary interceptor located at the site, and with location near school.
Proposed basins would achieve an 80 percent TSS reduction (remove 19
tons TSS annually) and 64% TP reduction (removed 79 lbs TP annually).
Additional modeling would need to be completed to ensure basins
Page 4 of 7
function separately for TSS removal.
Site Number: 35
2014 Microsoft Corporation Pictometry Bird’s Eye
Site Name: Westhaven Golf Course –
West Basin
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Sawyer Creek2
Location: Existing Westhaven Golf
Course – West of
Westhaven Drive
Description: To construct this basin City would purchase the entire golf course. This
basin would be constructed to provide water quality benefits and flood
control benefits (flood control benefits part of a separate study). The
basin would be built in between the fairways. Basin would treat a 261
acre drainage basin made up of primarily residential land uses.
Proposed basin would provide an 80% TSS reduction (18 tons TSS
annually) and provide a 64% TP reduction (114 lbs TP annually),
approximately 19 tons annually. Permanent pool size of 2.1 acres would
be needed.
Page 5 of 7
Site
Number: 31
Site Name: 9th and Washburn
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Campbell Creek
Location: 9th Avenue and
Washburn St
2014 Microsoft Corporation Pictometry Bird’s Eye
Description: Basin would be located behind existing homes/businesses at the
intersection of 9th Ave and Washburn St. The basin would treat 287 acre
drainage basin at 83.8% pollutant removal rate with a permanent pool
size of 8.8 acres. Approximately 19.2 tons of TSS would be removed.
This is an alternative to Site #34, along with Site #2.
Site Number: 36
Site Name: Libby Ave/N Main St
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Libby Ave/Nicolet Ave
Location: Northeast of intersection
of Main Street and
Libbey Avenue
Looking South from Packer Ave
Description: A 480 acre mixed use drainage from the Libbey and Nicolet Ave
watersheds would be treated by a wet basin with 3.5 acre permanent
pool. The runoff would enter the basin from the south via the
Libbey/North Main Street Inlet Channel. This basis will achieve 67% TSS
reduction and 53.6% TP reductions. Approx. 37 tons of TSS and 151 lbs
of TP would be removed annually.
Page 6 of 7
Alternative Sites to Proposed Projects
Site Number: 5
Site Name: South Park Quarry
Basin
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Stringham Creek1
Location: North of South Park
Avenue, South of
existing Quarry in
Vacant Parcel
Looking Northwest from South Park St
Description: Would construct a basin in a vacant parcel adjacent to the existing
quarry. Basin would serve a mixed use drainage area of 235 acres,
provide a 37% TSS reduction (remove 14 tons of TSS annually) and 30%
TP reduction (55 lbs of TP annually). A permanent pool of 7.7 acres
would be needed for an 80% TSS reduction, a feasible permanent pool
size of 0.75 acres is estimated. This site is an alternative location to Site
#4 – Site #4 serves a larger drainage area and removes a large amount
of TSS.
Site
Number: 16
2014 Microsoft Corporation Pictometry Bird’s Eye
Site Name: Miles Kimball Dry
Basin
Practice: Dry Basin Retro-fit
Subbasin: Sawyer Creek2
Location:
2155 S Oakwood Road
Description: Existing site has two dry basins treating stormwater runoff from the site.
Proposed practice would retro-fit basins to create 0.9 acres of wet pools
to improve water quality. Site would achieve an 80% TSS reduction
(remove 4 tons of TSS annually) and 64% TP reduction (removed 15 lbs
of TP annually). The drainage area is 40 acres and limited to the extent
of the Miles Kimball property. This is an alternative site to Site #29.
Page 7 of 7
Site Number: 26-1
Site Name: Bowen Street
Practice: Wet Basin
Subbasin: Anchorage Ct
Location: Southwest of
intersection of Murdock
Avenue and Bowen
Street
Looking Southwest from Murdock Ave
Description: This basin is an alternative site to Site #26. This site is located west of
Site #26, and is directly in front of grocery store – it would be located
between the entrance/exit drives. The drainage area would be the same,
however, the site is smaller and would achieve a 20% TSS reduction and
16% TP reduction, which would remove about 9 tons of TSS annually
and 49 lbs of TP annually. Permanent pool size allowed by site would be
0.8 acres. Option: Combine Site #26-1 and #26 into one basin connected
by large culverts to increase the pollutant removal.
0 1,000500
Feet
Nov. 201460268145
Site #4 -- 6 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 718 Acre Drainage Area
Figure D1 - Site #4
(Proposed)
South Park Basin Expansion
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 700350
Feet
Nov. 201460268145
Site #5 -- 1.5 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 235 Acre Drainage Area
Figure D2 - Site #5
(Alternate)
South Park Quarry Basin
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 300150
Feet
Figure D3 - Site #6
(Proposed)
Washburn St/Westowne Ave Basin
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Site #6 -- 0.30 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 77 Acre Drainage Area
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 300150
Feet
(scale is approximate)
Site #7 -- 0.62 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 69 Acre Drainage Area
Figure D4 - Site #7
(Proposed)
Pheasant Creek Basin
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
.
SUNNYVIEW RD.
SUNNYVIEW RD.
DR
.
CE
D
A
R
V
I
E
W
SH
A
M
B
E
A
U
DR.
MAR
W
A
Y
CT.ISLA
N
DESTA
T
E
SCT.
ZACH
E
R
DR.
IS
L
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
.
0 200100
Feet
Figure D5 - Site #15
(Proposed)
Island View Estates - Dry Basin
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Site #15 -- 0.36 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 49 Acre Drainage AreaDrainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 300150
Feet
Figure D6 - Site #16
(Alternate)
Miles Kimball Dry Basin
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Drainage Area
Proposed Basins
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
Site #16 -- 0.90 Acre (combined)
Wet Detention Basin
Treating 40 Acre Drainage Area
0 400200
Feet
Site #26 -- 1.1 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 340 Acre Drainage Area
Existing
Fair Acres Basin
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
Fair Acres Pond Drainage Area
Figure D7 - Site #26
(Proposed)
Bowen St
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
0 400200
Feet
(scale is approximate)
Site #26-1 -- 0.4 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 340 Acre Drainage AreaExisting
Fair Acres Basin
Figure D8 - Site #26-1
(Proposed)
Bowen St
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
Fair Acres Pond Drainage Area
0 400200
Feet
Figure D9 - Site #29
(Proposed)
Oakwood & 20th/Fox Tail Lane
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Site #29b -- 1.82 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 89 Acre Drainage Area
Site #29a -- 1.34 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 118 Acre Drainage Area
Sanitary Interceptor
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 600300
Feet
Figure D10 - Site #31
(Proposed)
9th & Washburn
West Basin
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
Site #31 -- 8.9 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 286.3 Acre Drainage Area
0 600300
Feet
Site #35 -- 2.1 Acre Wet Detention Basin
Treating 261 Acre Drainage Area
Figure D11 - Site #35
(Proposed)
Westhaven Golf Course
West Basin
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
0 600300
Feet
Figure D12 - Site #36
(Proposed)
Libby Ave/N. Main St
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Drainage Area
Proposed Basin
Municipal Boundary
Storm Sewer
Site #36 -- 6.76 Acre Wet Detention Basins
Treating 383 Acre Drainage Area
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
Appendix E
Proposed BMP Implementation
Schedule
ID Task Name
1 Stringham Creek Watershed Study
2
3 South Park Area Basin Retrofit Design
4
5 South Park Area Basin Retrofit Construction
6
7 Stringham Creek Watershed Acquisition
8
9 Stringham Creek Watershed Design
10
11 Stringham Creek Watershed Construction
12
13 James Road Area Detention Design
14
15 James Road Area Detention Construction
16
17 Sawyer Creek Dredging Design
18
19 Sawyer Creek Dredging Construction
20
21 Sawyer Creek Watershed Study Update
22
23 Sawyer Creek Watershed Acquisition
24
25 Sawyer Creek Watershed Design
26
27 Sawyer Creek Watershed Construction
28
29 Water Quality Study Update
30
31 Washburn Water Quality Basin Acquisition
32
33 Washburn Water Quality Basin Design
34
35 Washburn Water Quality Basin Construction
36
37 Glatz Creek Watershed Study
38
39 Glatz Creek Watershed Phase 1 Relief Sewer
Design
40
41 Glatz Creek Watershed Phase 1 Relief Sewer
Construction
42
43 Glatz Creek Watershed Phase 2 Relief Sewer
Design
44
45 Glatz Creek Watershed Phase 2 Relief Sewer
Construction
46
47 Libbey / Nicolet Watersheds Acquisition
48
49 Libbey / Nicolet Watersheds Design
50
51 Libbey / Nicolet Watersheds Construction
52
53 Armory Detention Basin Design
54
55 Armory Detention Basin Acquisition
56
57 Armory Detention Basin Construction
58
59 9th & Washburn Acqusition
60
61 9th & Washburn Design
62
63 9th & Washburn Construction
64
65 Campbell Creek Study Update
66
67 Campbell Creek Watershed Acqusition
68
69 Campbell Creek Watershed Design
rea Basin Retrofit Design
South Park Area Basin Retrofit Construction
Stringham Creek Watershed Acquisition
Stringham Creek Watershed Design
Stringham Creek Watershed Construction
Sawyer Creek Watershed Study Update
Sawyer Creek Watershed Acquisition
Sawyer Creek Watershed Design
Sawyer Creek Watershed Construction
asin Acquisition
n Water Quality Basin Design
Washburn Water Quality Basin Construction
er Construction
ibbey / Nicolet Watersheds Design
Libbey / Nicolet Watersheds Construction
ruction
9th & Washburn Construction
Campbell Creek Study Update
Campbell Creek Watershed Acqusition
Campbell Creek Watershed Design
Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Progress
Deadline
Capital Project Schedule 2014-2023
City of Oshkosh
Page 1
Project: City Wide SWMP Scheduling-
Date: Thu 11/20/14
ID Task Name
70
71 Campbell Creek Watershed Construction
72
73 City Hall Detention Design
74
75 City Hall Detention Construction
76
77 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed Study
78
79 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1
Acquisition
80
81 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1 Design
82
83 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1
Construction
84
85 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2
Acqusition
86
87 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2 Design
88
89 Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2
Construction
90
91 Johnson Creek Watershed Study
92
93 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Acquisition
94
95 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Design
96
97 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Construction
98
99 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Acqusition
100
101 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Design
102
103 Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Construction
104
105 Fernau Avenue Watershed Study
106
107 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 1 Acquisition
108
109 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 1 Design
110
111 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 1 Construction
112
113 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Acquisition
114
115 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Design
116
117 Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Construction
118
119 West Murdock Avenue Watershed Study
120
121 West Murdock Avenue Watershed Acquisition
122
123 West Murdock Avenue Watershed Design
124
125 West Murdock Avenue Watershed Construction
Campbell Creek Watershed Construction
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed Study
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1 Acquisition
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1 Design
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD1 Construction
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2 Acqusition
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2 Design
Gallups / Merritts Creek Watershed TBD2 Construction
Johnson Creek Watershed Study
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Acquisition
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Design
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD1 Construction
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Acqusition
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Design
Johnson Creek Watershed TBD2 Construction
atershed Study
ershed TBD 1 Acquisition
Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 1 Design
Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 1 Construction
Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Acquisition
Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Design
Fernau Avenue Watershed TBD 2 Construction
West Murdock Avenue Watershed Study
West Murdock Avenue Watershed Acquisition
West Murdock Avenue Watershed Design
West Murdock Avenue Watershed Construction
Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
Progress
Deadline
Capital Project Schedule 2014-2023
City of Oshkosh
Page 2
Project: City Wide SWMP Scheduling-
Date: Thu 11/20/14
AECOM Citywide Stormwater Quality Management Plan Update
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
L:\library\Dept\WAT_RES\Projects on Other Servers\60268145 - Oshkosh
SWMP\Report\R60268145-Osh_SWMP_Update_Rpt_Final_11-12-14.docx November 2014
Figures
Legend
State Highway
Municipal Boundary
WDNR Impaired Waterbody
Water
Project Area
0 10.5
Miles
Figure 2-1
City Drainage Map
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Dec. 201360268145
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Camp
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-1
Project Basins and Water Resources
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
Subbasins
Municipal Boundary
Water
Major Watershed
State Highway
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-2
2004 MS4 Existing Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
SLAMM Land UseCommercial
IndustrialInstitutional
Open
Residential
Municipal BoundaryWater
0 3,0001,500
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-3
2013 TMDL Existing Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
TMDL Land UseCommercial
IndustrialInstitutional
Open
Residential
Municipal BoundaryWater
Legend
State Highway
Municipal Boundary
Water
SoilsType
CLAY
SAND
SILT
0 10.5
Miles
Figure 4-4
Project Soils: NRCS Hydrologic Group
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Camp
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
0 3,5001,750
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-5
MS4 Excluded Areas
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
Water
Areas Removed from MS4
Agricultural
Quarry - Permitted Industrial
Open Space/Undeveloped
WisDOT Owned
Municipal Boundary
County Right of Way
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Base TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
Figure 4-6a
MS4 Base TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-6b
MS4 Base TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Base TP Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.1
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-7a
MS4 Base TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Base TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Base TP Loadings (lbs/year)
0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
Figure 4-7b
MS4 Base TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
0 3,5001,750
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Legend
Street Cleaning
Municipal Boundary
State Highway
Water
Street Sweeping Once Per Week
Enhanced Street Cleaning
(Once per week for six weeks, then
every other week)
Figure 4-9
Street Cleaning
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Test #9
Test #1
Test #3
Test #5
Test #6
Test #8
Test #2
Test #7
Test #4
Test #10
0 3,5001,750
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-10
Modeled Grass Swales
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
State Highway
Modeled Grass Swales
Municipal Boundary
Infiltration Testing Location
Water
Modeled Grass Swales
Test #9
Test #1
Test #3
Test #5
Test #6
Test #8
Test #2
Test #7
Test #4
Test #10
0 3,5001,750
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-11
Grass Swale Classification
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov.201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
State Highway
Municipal Boundary
Modeled Grass Swales
Infiltration Testing Location
Water
Grass Swale Drainage Area by Swale Type
Group 01
Group 02
Group 03
Group 04
Group 05
Group 06
Group 07
Group 08
Group 09
Group 10
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
ADAMS AVE
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
ROCKW
E
L
L
A
V
E
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
OMNI DR
OSBORN AVE
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
E SMITH AVE
W WAUKAU AVE
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
BISMARCK AVE ALLEY
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
E TENNESSEE AVE
ALLEY
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
E CUSTER AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
AL
L
E
Y
E LINCOLN AVE
W SMITH AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
AL
L
E
Y
ALLEY
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
Armory
Oakwood Road
South Park Pond
Westhaven Clubhouse Area
EAA 5EAA 3
EAA 3
EAA 1
Washburn St
Sawyer Creek
NW Ind. Park
Oshkosh Truck
Turn Key Auto
Bergstrom Auto
Target Complex
Cobblestone Inn
Main Park Basin
1200 Koeller St
Deerfield Village
Village Green East
Blue Rock Properties
Coughlin Center Basin
Aurora Medical Center
Sioux Prop. Man. Inc.
Community Church Inc.
Quail Run Farms Basin B
New Life Church Basin 3
Winnebago Cty Sheriff's Dept
N. Shore Preserve East Basin
2800 N Main St Redevelopment
N. Shore Preserve Central Basin
New Life Church Basin 1, 2, & 4
New Life Church Basin 1, 2, & 4
N. Shore Preserve West Basin North
City Hall
North High School
Fair Acres/Murdock
Mercy Hospital North Basin
EAA 2
Multi Bldg. LLC
Village Green West
Evergreen Manor Inc.
Quail Run Farms Basin A
Mercy Hospital South BasinMercy Hospital Tower Basin
New Life Church Basin 1, 2, & 4
N. Shore Preserve West Basin South
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-12
Structural BMP's
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Regional Wet Detention Basin Drainage Area
Municipal Boundary
Non-Regional Wet Detention Basin Drainage Area
Regional Wet Detention Basin Location
Non-Regional Wet Detention Basin Location
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
ROCKW
E
L
L
A
V
E
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-13
All Existing BMP's
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Catchbasin Drainage Area
Modeled Grass Swales
Swale Drainage Area
BMP Drainage Area
Regional Wet Detention Basin Drainage Area
Area treated with Sweeping
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
OA
K
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OMNI DR
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
E SMITH AVE
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
STH 91
MA
S
O
N
S
T
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
OMRO RD
AL
L
E
Y
E LINCOLN AVE
OSBORN AVE
W SMITH AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
OA
K
S
T
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-14a
MS4 Existing TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Existing TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
OA
K
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OMNI DR
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
E SMITH AVE
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
STH 91
MA
S
O
N
S
T
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
OMRO RD
AL
L
E
Y
E LINCOLN AVE
OSBORN AVE
W SMITH AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
OA
K
S
T
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-14b
MS4 Existing TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Existing TP Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.1
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
OA
K
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OMNI DR
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
E SMITH AVE
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
STH 91
MA
S
O
N
S
T
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
OMRO RD
AL
L
E
Y
E LINCOLN AVE
OSBORN AVE
W SMITH AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
OA
K
S
T
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-15a
MS4 Existing TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Existing TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
MA
S
O
N
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
OA
K
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OMNI DR
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
E SMITH AVE
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
STH 91
MA
S
O
N
S
T
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
OMRO RD
AL
L
E
Y
E LINCOLN AVE
OSBORN AVE
W SMITH AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
OA
K
S
T
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-15b
MS4 Existing TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WI
Stormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
Existing TP Loadings (lbs/year)
0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0 3,5001,750
Feet
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Winnebago
Lake Butte Des Morts
Cam
p
b
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Sawye
r
C
r
e
e
k
Figure 4-16
TMDL Excluded Areas
City of Oshkosh, WI
Nov. 201460268145
Stormwater Management Study
Legend
Water
Areas Removed from TMDL
Agricultural
Quarry - Permitted Industrial
WisDOT Owned
Municipal Boundary
County ROW
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Base TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
Figure 4-18a
TMDL Base TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-18b
TMDL Base TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Base TP Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.1
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-19a
TMDL Base TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Base TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALG
O
M
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBORN AVE
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVEN
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AV
E
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SHORE DR
LA
K
E
B
U
T
T
E
D
E
S
M
O
R
T
S
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MA
R
I
C
O
P
A
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY L
A
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
W 016TH (SIXTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION
R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
VILLAGE LA
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
MONTCLAIR PL
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
EL
K
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
OL
I
V
E
S
T
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
GU
E
N
T
H
E
R
S
T
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
ROOSEVELT AVE
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FO
S
T
E
R
S
T
WESTO
W
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIEWERT TR
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHA
D
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
FR
A
N
K
F
O
R
T
S
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
SH
A
R
R
A
T
T
D
R
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
S
T
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BE
A
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRAT
T
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
CAPITAL DR
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
SHO
R
E
B
I
R
D
C
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
EI
C
H
S
T
A
D
T
R
D
WY
L
D
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
WOODLAND AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
RIDGE LA
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
HAYWARD AVE
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
GR
A
B
E
R
S
T
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
W 035TH (THIRTY FIFTH) AVE
HEIDI HAVEN D
R
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
BACON AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EI
G
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
TI
T
A
N
C
T
OR
C
H
A
R
D
C
T
HE
N
N
E
S
S
Y
S
T
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
NATIONAL AVE
ERIE AVE
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
TEMPLETON PL
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
CAM
D
E
N
L
A
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
MC
K
I
N
L
E
Y
S
T
MA
D
I
S
O
N
S
T
DE
V
O
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
LA
W
N
D
A
L
E
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
ROCKW
E
L
L
A
V
E
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
LAKE REST
A
V
E
DICKINSON AVE
FILLMORE AVE
PARKVIEW CT
LA
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
SENNHOLZ CT
CAS
E
Y
T
R
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
IS
L
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
MAPLE AVE
CONCORDIA AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
NOEL CT
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
JO
H
N
M
O
O
R
E
D
R
VIKING
P
L
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
C
T
BO
N
G
C
T
GO
S
S
C
T
E 010TH (TENTH) AVE
W 025TH (TWENTY FIFTH) AVE
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
SHAWANO AVE
PR
O
G
R
E
S
S
D
R
BLAKE CT
MA
R
Y
D
E
N
R
D
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
PORTSIDE CT
NICOLE CT
BRO
W
N
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
CO
M
M
E
R
C
E
S
T
QUAIL C
T
VILAS AVE
ROCK PL
WE
S
T
E
R
N
C
T
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FUGLEBERG TR
WAL
T
E
R
C
T
W TENNESSEE AVE
S
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
BUTLER AVE
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
S
T
HU
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
P
L
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
OSBORN AVE
OA
K
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
W WAUKAU AVE
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
FULTON AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
W SMITH AVE
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
OMRO RD
W FERNAU AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
ALLEY
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
ALLEY
STH 9
1
KNAPP ST
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
ALLEY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
SIEWERT TR
ALLEY BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
WOODL
A
N
D
A
V
E
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
ALLEY
W WAUKAU AVE
E SMITH AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
W NEVADA AVE
E CUSTER AVE
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
OA
K
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ALLEY
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
ARTHUR AVE
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-19b
TMDL Base TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Base TP Loadings (lbs/year)
0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-20a
TMDL Existing TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Existing TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-20b
TMDL Existing TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Land Use
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Existing TP Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALGOM
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBOR
N
A
V
E
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVE
N
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AVE
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SH
O
R
E
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MARICOPA
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY LA
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
ELK
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FOST
E
R
S
T
WESTOW
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CLIFF
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIE
W
E
R
T
T
R
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHAD
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BEA
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRATT
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
DURFEE
A
V
E
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
PR
A
T
T
T
R
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
FARMSTEAD LA
BACON AVE
JOHN AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EIG
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
ERIE AVE
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
D
R
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
KENSINGTON AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
GA
L
W
A
Y
C
T
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
FILLMORE AVE
SENNHOLZ CT
MENARD DR
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
MAPLE AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
DO
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
VIKING
P
L
GO
S
S
C
T
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
ROCK PL
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
E SMITH AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
W WAUKAU AVEW WAUKAU AVE
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W SMITH AVE
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
AL
L
E
Y
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W FERNAU AVE
ALLEY
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ALLEY
OSBORN AVE
ALLEY
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
KNAPP ST
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OA
K
S
T
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
E LINCOLN AVE
STH 91
OA
K
S
T
OMRO RD
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
KN
A
P
P
S
T
ALLEY
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
AL
L
E
Y
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-21a
TMDL Existing TSS Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Existing TSS Loadings (lbs/acre/year)
300 - 350
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
250 - 300
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
200 - 250
Lake Butte Des Morts
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
JA
C
K
S
O
N
S
T
N
M
A
I
N
S
T
CT
H
A
BO
W
E
N
S
T
OR
E
G
O
N
S
T
S
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
ALG
O
M
A
B
L
V
D
WITZEL AVE
OH
I
O
S
T
HA
Z
E
L
S
T
W 009TH (NINTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
EV
A
N
S
S
T
HIG
H
A
V
E
VI
N
L
A
N
D
S
T
GR
O
V
E
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W SNELL RD
W 020TH (TWENTIETH) AVE
WI
S
C
O
N
S
I
N
S
T
STH 4
4
IO
W
A
S
T
E CTH Y
OA
K
S
T
W SOUTH PARK AVE
S
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
STH 91
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
S
T
RYF RD
W CTH Y
TAFT AVE
GR
A
N
D
S
T
DO
T
Y
S
T
PEA
R
L
A
V
E
MI
C
H
I
G
A
N
S
T
CEAPE AVE
OTTER AVE
DO
V
E
S
T
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
S
T
GE
O
R
G
I
A
S
T
E MURDOCK AVE
W 005TH (FIFTH) AVE
WAUGOO AVE
HUG
H
E
S
S
T
OSBORN AVE
MA
S
O
N
S
T
MERRITT AVEN
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
W 006TH (SIXTH) AVE
ELM
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
W LINWOOD AVE
STE
A
R
N
S
D
R
E NEVADA AVE
W BENT AVE
W MURDOCK AVE
HA
W
K
S
T
CONGRESS AVE
MO
S
E
R
S
T
N
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
W 010TH (TENTH) AVE
UN
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
S
T
E SNELL RD
E IRVING AVE
MI
N
E
R
V
A
S
T
WA
L
T
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
N
K
O
E
L
L
E
R
S
T
SH
E
R
I
D
A
N
S
T
BA
Y
S
T
N
L
A
R
K
S
T
W FERNAU AVE
ATLAS AVE
W 018TH (EIGHTEENTH) AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
S
W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
WASHINGTON AVE
SCOTT AVE
BO
Y
D
S
T
VIOLA AVE
N
W
A
S
H
B
U
R
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
W WAUKAU AVE
W 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HA
M
I
L
T
O
N
S
T
MENO
M
I
N
E
E
D
R
DIVI
S
I
O
N
S
T
ID
A
H
O
S
T
VINE AV
E
E PARKWAY AVE
W NEW YORK AVE
BE
E
C
H
S
T
DO
E
M
E
L
S
T
STH
2
6
ADAMS AVE
OSHKOSH AVE
CE
D
A
R
S
T
BAY SHORE DR
LA
K
E
B
U
T
T
E
D
E
S
M
O
R
T
S
D
R
W 011TH (ELEVENTH) AVE
AS
H
L
A
N
D
S
T
MA
R
I
C
O
P
A
D
R
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
S
T
PIERCE AVE
E NEW YORK AVE
MIL
L
S
T
SOUTHLAND AVE
JO
S
S
L
Y
N
S
T
W 019TH (NINETEENTH) AVE AR
I
Z
O
N
A
S
T
CH
E
R
R
Y
S
T
SCHOOL AVE
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
FON
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
SP
R
U
C
E
S
T
HOBBS AVE
CR
A
N
E
S
T
EA
S
T
M
A
N
S
T
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W 017TH (SEVENTEENTH) AVE
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ON
T
A
R
I
O
S
T
GR
E
E
N
F
I
E
L
D
T
R
ABBEY AVE
PIO
N
E
E
R
D
R
CL
O
V
E
R
S
T
FO
X
F
I
R
E
D
R
RU
G
B
Y
S
T
WE
S
T
E
R
N
S
T
FLORIDA AVE
OLSON AVE
E CUSTER AVE
S
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
RE
I
C
H
O
W
S
T
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
PO
B
E
R
E
Z
N
Y
R
D
PL
Y
M
O
U
T
H
S
T
RUSH AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
W IRVING AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
W LINCOLN AVE
E PACKER AVE
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
S
T
PU
N
H
O
Q
U
A
S
T
N CA
M
P
B
E
L
L
R
D
LA
K
E
S
T
BAU
M
A
N
S
T
NEWPORT AVE
WINNEBAGO AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
PL
A
N
E
V
I
E
W
D
R
RO
S
A
L
I
A
S
T
ALLER
T
O
N
D
R
E MELVIN AVE
GR
A
C
E
L
A
N
D
D
R
BALDWIN AVE
PA
R
K
S
I
D
E
D
R
NICOLET AVE
BR
A
D
L
E
Y
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
HICKORY L
A
CO
U
R
T
S
T
COLUMBIA AVE
ALLEY
W SMITH AVE
HARNEY AVE
W RIPPLE AVE
OM
N
I
D
R
N W
E
S
T
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
W 015TH (FIFTEENTH) AVE
W 016TH (SIXTEENTH) AVE
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
BADGE
R
A
V
E
WILSON AVE
MARION
R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
ME
D
A
L
I
S
T
D
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E
T
R
VILLAGE LA
FA
B
R
Y
S
T
SUNNYVIEW RD
W 014TH (FOURTEENTH) AVE
MONTCLAIR PL
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
SU
L
L
I
V
A
N
S
T
FA
I
R
F
A
X
S
T
HAVENWOOD DR
EV
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
DEMPSE
Y
T
R
S
L
A
R
K
S
T
MO
N
T
A
N
A
S
T
PATRIOT LA
W PACKER AVE
E TENNESSEE AVE
LI
L
A
C
S
T
EL
K
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
TYLER AVE
RUS
C
H
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
RAIN
B
O
W
D
R
CHURC
H
A
V
E
ALLEN AVE
RAHR AVE
WR
I
G
H
T
S
T
PRAT
T
T
R
E
OL
I
V
E
S
T
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
WH
I
T
E
T
A
I
L
L
N
GU
E
N
T
H
E
R
S
T
PH
E
A
S
A
N
T
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
R
D
ROOSEVELT AVE
HURON AVE
OMRO RD
E BENT AVE
LIBBEY AVE
AR
M
O
R
Y
P
L
FO
X
S
T
ST
A
T
E
S
T
FO
S
T
E
R
S
T
WESTO
W
N
E
A
V
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
S
T
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
D
R
ROBIN AVE
BU
R
D
I
C
K
S
T
SIEWERT TR
BELLFIE
L
D
D
R
FULTON AVE
BISMARCK AVE
E SMITH AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
S
T
COZY
L
A
PORTER AVE
BE
R
N
H
E
I
M
S
T
VET
E
R
A
N
S
T
R
IDA AVE
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
LAAGER LA
DAW
E
S
S
T
TI
M
O
T
H
Y
T
R
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
MA
R
V
E
L
D
R
WE
S
T
E
R
N
D
R
FARMINGTON AVE
FR
A
N
K
L
I
N
S
T
MALLARD AVE
SHA
D
O
W
L
A
MOCKINGBIRD WAY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
CO
V
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
R
CHRISTIAN DR
CL
I
F
F
V
I
E
W
C
T
FR
A
N
K
F
O
R
T
S
T
KE
N
T
U
C
K
Y
S
T
AL
A
S
K
A
S
T
AMHERST AVE
W MELVIN AVE
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
PARK RIDGE AVE
OSC
E
O
L
A
S
T
FISK AVE
MO
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
SH
A
R
R
A
T
T
D
R
GLO
B
A
L
P
K
W
Y
KI
R
K
W
O
O
D
D
R
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
S
T
CU
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
T
R
TH
O
R
N
T
O
N
D
R
STILLWELL AVE
W GRUENWALD AVE
LO
G
A
N
D
R
E FERNAU AVE
POPLAR AVE
KA
N
S
A
S
S
T
STONEY BE
A
C
H
R
D
ZARLING AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
W NEVADA AVE
PRAT
T
T
R
W
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
PROSPECT AVEARTHUR AVE
ALPINE CT
SU
M
M
E
R
S
E
T
W
A
Y
RATH LA
VANBUREN AVE
CAPITAL DR
SH
O
R
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
STILLMAN DR
HOMESTEAD DR
WO
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
S
T
SHO
R
E
B
I
R
D
C
T
FREEDOM AVE
HARMEL AVE
GOLDEN AVE
ISAAC LA
LO
C
U
S
T
S
T
EI
C
H
S
T
A
D
T
R
D
WY
L
D
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
WESTWIND RD
W 003RD (THIRD) AVE
AR
D
M
O
R
E
T
R
MARQUETTE AVE
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
S
T
DALE AVE
JACOB AVE
CR
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
WOODLAND AVE
FOX TAIL LA
FAUST AVE
OL
D
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
RIDGE LA
OAKS T
R
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
HAYWARD AVE
GREENWOOD CT
STERLING AVE
RIPON
L
A
LAMAR AVE
GR
A
B
E
R
S
T
PICKETT AVE
STARBOARD CT
BABBITZ AVE
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
W 035TH (THIRTY FIFTH) AVE
HEIDI HAVEN D
R
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
WINDWARD CT
BAVARIAN CT
CLEVELAND AVE
ST
O
N
E
Y
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
WH
E
A
T
F
I
E
L
D
W
A
Y
LEEWARD CT
SA
W
T
E
L
L
C
T
EM
M
E
R
S
L
N
ZACHER
D
R
MYRNA JANE DR
FE
R
N
A
U
C
T
BACON AVE
ANNEX AVE
BUCHANAN AVE
CO
M
E
T
S
T
W CUSTER AVE
BIRC
H
L
A
SAWYER CREEK DR
OXFORD AVE
HUDSON AVE
ME
R
R
I
L
L
S
T
ECKARDT CT
W 028TH (TWENTY EI
G
H
T
H
)
A
V
E
TI
T
A
N
C
T
OR
C
H
A
R
D
C
T
HE
N
N
E
S
S
Y
S
T
BROCKWAY AVE
ANCHORAGE CT
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
NATIONAL AVE
ERIE AVE
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HIGH OAK DR
TEMPLETON PL
HOLLISTER AVE
FA
I
R
L
A
W
N
S
T
CAM
D
E
N
L
A
LO
U
I
S
E
C
T
MC
K
I
N
L
E
Y
S
T
MA
D
I
S
O
N
S
T
DE
V
O
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
LA
W
N
D
A
L
E
S
T
UNION AVE
SPRINGMILL DR
JA
C
K
T
A
R
R
D
HA
R
B
O
R
B
A
Y
R
D
OR
C
H
A
R
D
L
A
ZI
O
N
S
T
ARCADIA AVE
HE
A
R
T
H
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
ROCKW
E
L
L
A
V
E
BURNWOOD DR
PICKETT RD
LAKE REST
A
V
E
DICKINSON AVE
FILLMORE AVE
PARKVIEW CT
LA
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
SENNHOLZ CT
CAS
E
Y
T
R
DO
C
T
O
R
S
C
T
IS
L
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
D
R
MAPLE AVE
CONCORDIA AVE
RIV
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
NOEL CT
HA
R
V
E
S
T
D
R
SECURITY D
R
SO
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
JO
H
N
M
O
O
R
E
D
R
VIKING
P
L
JU
D
Y
L
E
E
C
T
BO
N
G
C
T
GO
S
S
C
T
E 010TH (TENTH) AVE
W 025TH (TWENTY FIFTH) AVE
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
SHAWANO AVE
PR
O
G
R
E
S
S
D
R
BLAKE CT
MA
R
Y
D
E
N
R
D
E 009TH (NINTH) AVE
LA
M
P
E
R
T
S
T
PORTSIDE CT
NICOLE CT
BRO
W
N
S
T
E 008TH (EIGHTH) AVE
HURON CT
KATY CT
IVY P
L
CO
M
M
E
R
C
E
S
T
QUAIL C
T
VILAS AVE
ROCK PL
WE
S
T
E
R
N
C
T
WE
I
S
B
R
O
D
S
T
FLUOR CT
CO
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
C
T
FUGLEBERG TR
WAL
T
E
R
C
T
W TENNESSEE AVE
S
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
BUTLER AVE
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
S
T
HU
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
P
L
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
OSBORN AVE
OA
K
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
W WAUKAU AVE
W 004TH (FOURTH) AVE
KN
A
P
P
S
T
FULTON AVE
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
W SMITH AVE
AL
L
E
Y
AL
L
E
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
OMRO RD
W FERNAU AVE
E LINCOLN AVE
ALLEY
HICK
O
R
Y
L
A
OSHKO
S
H
A
V
E
WH
I
T
E
S
W
A
N
D
R
ALLEY
STH 9
1
KNAPP ST
W 012TH (TWELFTH) AVE
FO
N
D
D
U
L
A
C
R
D
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
S
T
ALLEY
W 007TH (SEVENTH) AVE
S
S
A
W
Y
E
R
S
T
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
T
SIEWERT TR
ALLEY BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
SA
N
D
E
R
S
S
T
WOODL
A
N
D
A
V
E
S
O
A
K
W
O
O
D
R
D
S
W
E
S
T
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
SH
E
R
M
A
N
R
D
ALLEY
W WAUKAU AVE
E SMITH AVE
NE
B
R
A
S
K
A
S
T
W NEVADA AVE
E CUSTER AVE
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
BR
O
A
D
S
T
E
OA
K
S
T
BISMARCK AVE
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
ALLEY
AL
L
E
Y
MO
U
N
T
V
E
R
N
O
N
S
T
MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
ALLEY
ALLEY
BR
O
A
D
S
T
W
PO
W
E
R
S
S
T
W RIPPLE AVE
N
E
A
G
L
E
S
T
AL
L
E
Y
CE
N
T
R
A
L
S
T
ARTHUR AVE
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Figure 4-21b
TMDL Existing TP Conditions
Annual Pollutant Load by Watershed
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Water
TMDL Existing TP Loadings (lbs/year)
0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 0.6
0.6 - 0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.8 - 0.9
0.9 - 1.0
0.36 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 49 Acre Drainage Area
6 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 718 Acre Drainage Area
0.30 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 77 Acre Drainage Area
0.62 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 69 Acre Drainage Area
1.10 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 340 Acre Drainage Area
3.16 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 207 Acre Drainage Area
2.10 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 261 Acre Drainage Area
5.33 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 383 Acre Drainage Area
8.8 Acre Wet Basin
Treating 287 Acre Drainage Area
6
7
435
31
29
26
15
36
0 1,700 3,400850
Feet
Lake Winnebago
Fox
R
i
v
e
r
Lake Butte Des Morts
Figure 5-2
Proposed Best Management Practices
City of Oshkosh, WIStormwater Management Study
Nov. 201460268145
Legend
Municipal Boundary
Subbasins
Proposed Wet Basins
No Lift Station
With Lift Station
Redevelopment Areas
Engineered Swales
Proposed BMPs
4 - South Park Expansion
35 - Westhaven GC West
36 - Libbey/Nicolet
7 - Pheasant Creek Dry Basin
26 - Bowen Street
6 - Washburn/Westtowne Basin
31 - 9th and Washburn
15 - Island View Estates Dry
29 - Oakwood & 20th/Fox Tail *
Proposed Stormwater Quality ProjectsWater Quality Ponds OnlyEvaluation and Ranking
Total Drainage Area to BMP(acres)
4 Stringham Creek1 1300 Georgia St South Park Basin Expansion Retrofit 718
35 Sawyer Creek2 S Westhaven Dr Westhaven Golf Course - West Pond
New Basin 261
36 Libbey Ave / Nicolet Ave N Main St Libby Ave/N Main St New Basin 383
7 Sawyer Creek2 Pheasant Creek Dr Pheasant Creek Dry Basin Retrofit 69
26 Anchorage Ct E Murdock & Bowen St Bowen Street New Basin 340
6 Omro Rd Washburn St Washburn St/Westtowne Ave Basin Retrofit 77
31 Campbell Creek 9th Ave & Washburn St 9th and Washburn New Basin 287
15 Sunnyview Rd North 4660 Sherman Rd Island View Estates Dry Basin Retrofit 49
29 Sawyer Creek2 3000 W 20th Ave Oakwood & 20th / Fox Tail Ln New Basins 207
Proposed BMP ID Subbasin Address Common Name Practice