phosphorus management in the fox-wolf basin

Managing Phosphorus in the Fox-‐Wolf Basin: The Adaptive

Management Option

Emily Jones Water Program Coordinator

Clean Wisconsin

Your environmental voice since 1970 www.cleanwisconsin.org | Twi0er: @cleanwisconsin

Overview

•  Context for phosphorus management in the Fox-‐Wolf basin: The challenge

•  Wisconsin’s AdapBve Management OpBon •  ApplicaBon: the AdapBve Management OpBon in the Fox-‐Wolf basin


The Fox-‐Wolf Basin


Wikipedia.org/kmusser UWGB

Phosphorus in the Fox-‐Wolf Basin

•  Urban, ag, industrial sources causing impairments

•  Heavy phosphorus loading causing hypoxic “dead zone”

•  Upper Fox and Wolf will also need work


10/6/1999 Sam Batzli, Space Science and Engineering Center

Phosphorus Management in the Fox – Wolf Basin

Bill Hafs NEW Water

Great Lakes Conference September 11, 2013

Challenges Lower Fox River Watershed has 14 sub-watersheds, 34 permitted wastewater and industrial facilities and 42 units of government.

One Third of all nutrients entering Lake Michigan come from the Fox River.

Photo by Steve Seilo / www.photodynamix.com April 2011

Priority Sub-‐watersheds

Mouth of East River at the Fox

River

Distinct gradient of water pollution from the Fox River to clearer water north of Little Sturgeon Bay

Can we protect Lake Michigan from Green Bay?

Phosphorous Trend - NEW Water Monitoring

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Year

Above De Pere Fox River Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

TMDL 0.100 mg/L

Total Phosphorus Loadings

549,703 lbs/year - LFR 716,945 lbs/yr – Lake Winnebago

Source

Total Phosphorus (lbs/yr)

Natural Background 5,609

Agricultural 251,382 Urban ( non-‐regulatory) 15,960

Urban Regulated (MS4) 65,829

ConstrucSon Sites 7,296 General Permits 2,041 Industrial WWTFs 114,426 Municipal WWTFs 87,160

Total In-‐Basin 549,703 Lake Winnebago 716,954 Total (In-‐Basin + Lake Winnebago 1,266,657

Source of tables: Total Maximum Daily Load and Watershed Management Plan for Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids in the Lower Fox River Basin and Lower Green Bay (June 2010)

12

Who’s involved?

AgriculturalLand44%

Barnyard3%

Urban9%

Constructio n Sites3%

Other no npoint

3%

Municipal Point 17%

Industrial Point21%

Total Phosphorus Export Lower Fox River Basin and Duck Creek

2004 Baseline, Total 238,912 kg

Agriculture63%

Urban19%

Co nstructio n Sites10%

Other nonpo int

3%Point

Sources5%

Total Suspended Solids Export Lower Fox River Basin and Duck Creek

2004 Baseline, Total 57,518 ton

(Data Source: Total Maximum Daily Load - TMDL Watershed Plan for Lower Fox River 2010 )

•  WWTF’s • Municipal Storm water •  Industrial WWTF’s • Agriculture

Green Bay has a Dead Zone

Oxygen July 17 thru Sept 12 Days < 5 mg/L Ave. DO 1990: 4 3.8 mg/ L 2005: 17 3.1 2009: 28 3.5 2010: 39 1.7 2011: 43 1.7

NEW Water and UWM Sample points

Wisconsin’s Phosphorus Rule •  Passed in 2010 – first of its kind in naBon •  Statewide numeric standards •  Package of changes to state Natural Resource code

–  NR 102: Sets P limits for state waters –  NR 151: Agricultural performance standards to reduce runoff

–  NR 217: Water-‐quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) and compliance opSons for meeBng phosphorus standards



P Compliance Options

Watershed

Upgrades Trading

Facility

AdapBve Management

Adaptive Management Option •  A strategy for WPDES permi0ees to comply with phosphorus standards by reducing NPS

•  Cost-‐effecBve and comprehensive

•  Focus = Watershed-‐wide collaboraBon


Flickr/Wisconsin DNR

AMO Criteria •  Exceedance of phosphorus in permi0ee’s receiving water caused by both PS and NPS

•  Exceedance is primarily due to NPS •  At least 50% of total phosphorus OR effluent limit demonstrably can’t

be a0ained without reducing NPS •  MS4s count as NPS

•  WQBEL is stringent •  FiltraBon or an equivalent technology would be necessary to meet

limit •  Generally considered 0.4 mg/L or lower


AMO Plans


Must include: •  Analysis of major P sources in the watershed •  Goals and measures for assessing progress and compliance

•  IdenBficaBon of partners & their level of support •  Demonstrated ability to fund the project **9 elements required for a complete plan to DNR

AMO Needs


Modeling/Monitoring Data

(ScienBfic)

Economic Feasibility Data (Financial)

IncenBves for Buy-‐In (ParBcipatory)

Defined Roles and ExpectaBons

(Accountability)

Reducing Uncertainty

AMO and Trading •  Similar in concept: invesBng in phosphorus reducBon pracBces elsewhere to meet phosphorus limits (for example, PS-‐NPS)


Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS Flickr/eutrophicaBon&hypoxia

$

Phosphorus reducSons

AMO compared to Trading WQ Trading AMO

Focus Permit requirements for effluent

WQ standards for receiving water

Compliance demonstrated by…

Credit purchase/offsets In-‐stream monitoring data

Water quality monitoring

Not required Required

Flexibility Lower (must follow trading framework)

Higher


Case Study: Lower Fox AMO

•  Central point source: NEW Water (Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District)

•  Projected cost of ~$223 million to meet 0.2 mg/L TMDL limit

More cost-‐effecBve to reduce NPS


Case Study: Lower Fox AMO Assets/Tools: •  ExisBng water quality data •  Structures to help verify compliance (e.g., buffer ordinance)

•  Focus of regional/federal iniBaBves & resources

•  Partnerships with NGOs, agencies, Oneida et al


Case Study: Lower Fox AMO Current AcSviSes: •  NEW Water opBmizaBon study •  AMO feasibility study (Fox-‐Wolf Watershed

Alliance) •  TMDL implementaBon (DNR) •  NEW Water and UWGB water quality monitoring •  Fox P Trade project beginning


Case Study: Lower Fox AMO Future plans •  Pilot projects taking shape to engage partners and assess effecBveness of BMPs – kicking off soon

•  ConBnued outreach to potenBal stakeholders •  AddiBonal scienBfic and economic study to determine potenBal NPS reducBons

•  CollaboraSon with other groups to maximize results


Additional Resources •  Clean Wisconsin AdapBve Management guidebook •  DNR AdapBve Management technical handbook •  DNR trading guidance


Connect with Clean Wisconsin

Follow us on

Visit our website at www.cleanwisconsin.org

Emily Jones [email protected] 608-‐251-‐7020 x13

phosphorus management in the fox-wolf basin

Technology