Wisconsin is the only Great Lakes state with statewide numeric water quality standards for phosphorus. In the Fox-Wolf basin, where phosphorus pollution is a major issue, there are projects underway to meet those standards through the innovative strategies of water quality trading and Wisconsin’s “adaptive management option” This workshop will illustrate each strategy through case studies and a discussion of their similarities and differences. This presentation was given by Emily Jones, Water Program Assistant, Clean Wisconsin.

1. 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

2. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

3. The
Fox-­‐Wolf
Basin
UWGB
Wikipedia.org/kmusser
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

4. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

5. Phosphorus Management
in the Fox – Wolf Basin
Bill Hafs
NEW Water
Great Lakes Conference
September 11, 2013

6. Challenges
Lower Fox River Watershed has 14 subwatersheds, 34 permitted wastewater and
industrial facilities and 42 units of
government.

7. One Third of all nutrients entering Lake Michigan
come from the Fox River.
Photo by Steve Seilo / www.photodynamix.com
April 2011

8. Priority
Sub-­‐watersheds
Mouth of East
River at the Fox
River

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

10. Can we protect Lake Michigan from Green Bay?

11. Phosphorous Trend - NEW Water Monitoring
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
TMDL
0.100
mg/L
0.10
0.05
0.00
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
Year
Above De Pere
Fox River
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
11
12

12. Total Phosphorus Loadings
549,703 lbs/year - LFR
716,945 lbs/yr – Lake Winnebago
Source
Natural
Background
Total
Phosphorus
(lbs/
yr)
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
Lake
Winnebago
Total
(In-­‐Basin
+
Lake
Winnebago
549,703
716,954
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

13. Who’s involved?
Total Phosphorus Export
Lower Fox River Basin and Duck Creek
2004 Baseline, Total 238,912 kg
• WWTF’s
• Municipal Storm water
• Industrial WWTF’s
• Agriculture
Industrial
Point
21%
Municipal
Point
17%
Other
no npoint
3%
Agricul tural
Land
44%
Urban
9%
Construc tio n
Sit es
3%
Barny ard
3%
L
(Data Source:
Total Maximum
Daily Load TMDL
Watershed Plan
for Lower Fox
River 2010 )

14. 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

15. NEW
Water
and
UWM
Sample
points

16. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

17. P
Compliance
Options
Facility
Upgrades
Watershed
Trading
AdapBve
Management
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

18. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

19. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

20. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

21. AMO
Needs
Modeling/
Monitoring
Data
(ScienBfic)
Economic
Feasibility
Data
(Financial)
Reducing
Uncertainty
IncenBves
for
Buy-­‐In
(ParBcipatory)
Defined
Roles
and
ExpectaBons
(Accountability)
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

22. AMO
and
Trading
• Similar
in
concept:
invesBng
in
phosphorus
reducBon
pracBces
elsewhere
to
meet
phosphorus
limits
(for
example,
PS-­‐NPS)
Flickr/eutrophicaBon&hypoxia
$
Phosphorus
reducSons
Photo
courtesy
of
USDA
NRCS
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

23. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

24. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

25. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

26. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

27. 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
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

28. Additional
Resources
• Clean
Wisconsin
AdapBve
Management
guidebook
• DNR
AdapBve
Management
technical
handbook
• DNR
trading
guidance
Your
environmental
voice
since
1970
www.cleanwisconsin.org
|
Twi0er:
@cleanwisconsin

29. Connect
with
Clean
Wisconsin
Emily
Jones
ejones@cleanwisconsin.org
608-­‐251-­‐7020
x13
Follow
us
on
Visit
our
website
at
www.cleanwisconsin.org