Managing	
  Phosphorus	
  in	
  the	
  
Fox-­‐Wolf	
  Basin:	
  The	
  Adaptive	
  
Management	
  Option	
  
	
  
Emily	
 ...
Overview	
  
•  Context	
  for	
  phosphorus	
  management	
  in	
  the	
  
Fox-­‐Wolf	
  basin:	
  The	
  challenge	
  
•...
The	
  Fox-­‐Wolf	
  Basin	
  

UWGB	
  
Wikipedia.org/kmusser	
  

Your	
  environmental	
  voice	
  since	
  1970	
  	
 ...
Phosphorus	
  in	
  the	
  Fox-­‐Wolf	
  
Basin	
  
•  Urban,	
  ag,	
  industrial	
  
sources	
  causing	
  
impairments	...
Phosphorus Management
in the Fox – Wolf Basin
Bill Hafs
NEW Water

Great Lakes Conference
September 11, 2013
Challenges
Lower Fox River Watershed has 14 subwatersheds, 34 permitted wastewater and
industrial facilities and 42 units ...
One Third of all nutrients entering Lake Michigan
come from the Fox River.

Photo by Steve Seilo / www.photodynamix.com

A...
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

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

TMDL	
  0.100	
  mg/L	
  

0.10...
Total Phosphorus Loadings
549,703 lbs/year - LFR
716,945 lbs/yr – Lake Winnebago
Source	
  
	
  
Natural	
  Background	
  ...
Who’s involved?
Total Phosphorus Export
Lower Fox River Basin and Duck Creek
2004 Baseline, Total 238,912 kg

•  WWTF’s
• ...
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
...
NEW	
  Water	
  and	
  UWM	
  Sample	
  points	
  
Wisconsin’s	
  Phosphorus	
  Rule	
  
•  Passed	
  in	
  2010	
  –	
  first	
  of	
  its	
  kind	
  in	
  naBon	
  
•  Stat...
P	
  Compliance	
  Options	
  
Facility	
  
Upgrades	
  

Watershed	
  
Trading	
  

AdapBve	
  
Management	
  

Your	
  e...
Adaptive	
  Management	
  Option	
  	
  
•  A	
  strategy	
  for	
  WPDES	
  
permi0ees	
  to	
  comply	
  
with	
  phosph...
AMO	
  Criteria	
  
•  Exceedance	
  of	
  phosphorus	
  in	
  permi0ee’s	
  receiving	
  
water	
  caused	
  by	
  both	
...
AMO	
  Plans	
  
Must	
  include:	
  
	
  
•  Analysis	
  of	
  major	
  P	
  sources	
  in	
  the	
  watershed	
  
•  Goa...
AMO	
  Needs	
  
Modeling/
Monitoring	
  Data	
  
(ScienBfic)	
  

Economic	
  Feasibility	
  
Data	
  (Financial)	
  

Red...
AMO	
  and	
  Trading	
  
•  Similar	
  in	
  concept:	
  invesBng	
  in	
  phosphorus	
  reducBon	
  
pracBces	
  elsewhe...
AMO	
  compared	
  to	
  Trading	
  
WQ	
  Trading	
  

AMO	
  

Focus	
  

Permit	
  requirements	
  
for	
  effluent	
  	
...
Case	
  Study:	
  Lower	
  Fox	
  AMO	
  
•  Central	
  point	
  source:	
  NEW	
  
Water	
  (Green	
  Bay	
  
Metropolita...
Case	
  Study:	
  Lower	
  Fox	
  AMO	
  
Assets/Tools:	
  

•  ExisBng	
  water	
  quality	
  data	
  	
  
•  Structures	...
Case	
  Study:	
  Lower	
  Fox	
  AMO	
  
Current	
  AcSviSes:	
  
•  NEW	
  Water	
  opBmizaBon	
  study	
  
•  AMO	
  fe...
Case	
  Study:	
  Lower	
  Fox	
  AMO	
  
Future	
  plans	
  
•  Pilot	
  projects	
  taking	
  shape	
  to	
  engage	
  p...
Additional	
  Resources	
  
•  Clean	
  Wisconsin	
  AdapBve	
  Management	
  guidebook	
  
•  DNR	
  AdapBve	
  Managemen...
Connect	
  with	
  Clean	
  Wisconsin	
  
Emily	
  Jones	
  
ejones@cleanwisconsin.org	
  
608-­‐251-­‐7020	
  x13	
  
Fol...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin

750

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 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
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
750
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin

  1. 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. 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. 3. The  Fox-­‐Wolf  Basin   UWGB   Wikipedia.org/kmusser   Your  environmental  voice  since  1970     www.cleanwisconsin.org    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  4. 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. 5. Phosphorus Management in the Fox – Wolf Basin Bill Hafs NEW Water Great Lakes Conference September 11, 2013
  6. 6. Challenges Lower Fox River Watershed has 14 subwatersheds, 34 permitted wastewater and industrial facilities and 42 units of government.
  7. 7. One Third of all nutrients entering Lake Michigan come from the Fox River. Photo by Steve Seilo / www.photodynamix.com April 2011
  8. 8. Priority  Sub-­‐watersheds   Mouth of East River at the Fox River
  9. 9. Distinct gradient of water pollution from the Fox River to clearer water north of Little Sturgeon Bay
  10. 10. Can we protect Lake Michigan from Green Bay?
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15. NEW  Water  and  UWM  Sample  points  
  16. 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. 17. P  Compliance  Options   Facility   Upgrades   Watershed   Trading   AdapBve   Management   Your  environmental  voice  since  1970     www.cleanwisconsin.org    |    Twi0er:  @cleanwisconsin  
  18. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. Connect  with  Clean  Wisconsin   Emily  Jones   ejones@cleanwisconsin.org   608-­‐251-­‐7020  x13   Follow  us  on   Visit  our  website  at  www.cleanwisconsin.org  
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×