Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
 Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin


Published on

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 …

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.

Published in: Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Managing  Phosphorus  in  the   Fox-­‐Wolf  Basin:  The  Adaptive   Management  Option     Emily  Jones   Water  Program  Coordinator   Clean  Wisconsin   Your  environmental  voice  since  1970    |    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    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  • 3. The  Fox-­‐Wolf  Basin   UWGB   Your  environmental  voice  since  1970    |    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    |    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 / 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    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  • 17. P  Compliance  Options   Facility   Upgrades   Watershed   Trading   AdapBve   Management   Your  environmental  voice  since  1970    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    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    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  • 28. Additional  Resources   •  Clean  Wisconsin  AdapBve  Management  guidebook   •  DNR  AdapBve  Management  technical  handbook   •  DNR  trading  guidance     Your  environmental  voice  since  1970    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  • 29. Connect  with  Clean  Wisconsin   Emily  Jones   608-­‐251-­‐7020  x13   Follow  us  on   Visit  our  website  at