planning and implementing adaptive management in the lower ... · 3/3/2016 · phosphorus and...
Post on 08-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Planning and Implementing Adaptive
Management in the Lower Fox River
Basin
Tom Sigmund, Executive Director
NEW Water Wisconsin Land + Water Conference | March 3, 2016
Protecting Our Most
Valuable Resource, Water
NEW Water Vision:
NEW Water – the brand of the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
• Provides collection and treatment for 18 municipalities in Northeast Wisconsin
• Formed in 1931. Owns and operates: • Green Bay Facility, designed to
treat 49.2 mgd through secondary treatment
• De Pere Facility, designed to treat 14.3 mgd through tertiary treatment
• Serves a population of 230,000
De Pere and Green Bay Water Resource Recovery Facilities
De Pere Facility
Green Bay Facility
Why is NEW Water Considering Adaptive Management (AM)?
Why is NEW Water Considering AM?
• In 2019 NEW Water will face a phosphorus effluent limit of 0.1 mg/l (current capability is 0.3 mg/l)
• NR 217 allows Water Quality Trading or Adaptive Management as alternative compliance strategies
• Began 5-year AM pilot project in 2014 to determine if this was a viable compliance option
• 20-year variance period is available
7
31,624 lbs/year
22,292 lbs/year
Cost: $220 million
+
$2 million/year
Baseline
Phosphorus
Allocated
Phosphorus
Distinct Gradient of Water Pollution
From Fox River into Green Bay
Background: The Fox River Contributes 1/3 of All Nutrients to Lake Michigan
Photo credit: Steve Seilo
(www.photodynamix.com)
APRIL 15, 2011
Source: Val Klump, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
April 2011
Duck Creek
Fox River
NEW Water
Fox Wolf Drainage Basin
10
Sources of Phosphorus in Lower Fox River (LFR) Basin
Data Source: Total Maximum Daily Load – TMDL (DNR, EPA , Oneida Tribe)
Watershed Plan for Lower Fox River March 2012
Total Phosphorus Loadings - TMDL
Source
Total
Phosphorus
(lbs./yr.)
Natural Background 5,609
Agricultural 251,382
Urban ( non-regulatory) 15,960
Urban Regulated (MS4) 65,829
Construction 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
(March 2012)
Outfall of NEW Water
into Fox River
September 2013
Business Case for Phosphorus (P)
Lower Fox River TMDL Estimated Capital Costs:
Estimated Costs Sources P TMDL
Municipal WWTF’s: $400 – $500 million ?? 87,160 lbs/yr
NEW Water: ($223 - $394 million) 31,624 lbs/yr
(capital costs 2010 and 2025) (included as part of total)
MS4’s storm water: $200 - $400 million 65,829 lbs/yr
(2013 FWWA Conference)
Industrial WWTF’s: $200 million ?? 114,429 lbs/ yr
Agriculture $ ??? 251,382 lbs/yr
Total: $800 Million - $1.1 Billion
Note: Brown
County LWCD
$45 million dollars
on all Agriculture
BMP’s, Staff, and
Programs from
1983-2012.
River Sites
Current
NEW Water Sample Sites
Legend
Current Sample Sites
Continuous Monitors
Historical Sample Sites
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
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 13 14 15
Tota
l Ph
osp
ho
rus
(mg
/L)
Year
Total Phosphorus
Above DePere Fox River Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 TMDL Target
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
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 13 14 15
Tota
l Su
spen
ded
So
lids
(mg
/L)
Year
Total Suspended Solids
Above De Pere Fox River Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 TMDL Target
Water Quality Trends
TMDL
Target
Source: Kevin Fermanich UWGB
Fox River TP Export to Green Bay and WWTP Discharges
Silver Creek AM Pilot Project
Silver Creek AM Pilot Project
AM
SL-172
SL-FLD
SL-COU
SL-CKR
SL-FCR
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
SL - 172 SL - FLD grab SL - FLD Event SL - COU SL - CKR SL - FCR
Tota
l Ph
osp
ho
rus
(mg
/L)
Sample Sites
Silver Creek Total Phosphorus
2014 2015 WQ Std
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SL - 172 SL - FLD grab SL - FLD Event SL - COU SL - CKR SL - FCR
Tota
l Su
spen
ded
So
lids
(mg
/L)
Sample Sites
Silver Creek Total Suspended Solids
2014 2015 WQ Std
Soil Sampling: Phosphorus, Biological Assessment
21 Jim Snitgen, Biologist / Oneida Tribe
2015 – A Year of Inventory
• 108 Fields sampled – 2.5 acre grid
Comprehensive Field Evaluations
• ArcGIS Collector – tablet application
2015 – A Year of Inventory
Agronomists, County, Oneida, NRCS, CH2M, NEW Water Staff
Grazing & Wetland Planning Meetings
Initial Results - Insight
• Variability • Soil P: 3 to 553ppm
• 27 fields (25%) > 50ppm average soil P
• Historic land use
• Nutrient spreading patterns
24
??
??
Nutrient Management Plan Strategy
• Nearly all fields in NMPs
• Update with “Enhanced” NMPs (ENMP) • Push convention
• Opportunities • Rotations
• Tillage
• Cover or companion crops
• Custom fertilizer blends
• Variable rate technology
• Track grower acceptance and barriers to implementation
Conservation Field Walk Expertise
• Expertise by professionals • Agronomists: conservationists and grower/owner liaison
• County: conservationists
• NRCS: conservationists
• Engineer: storm water management expertise
• Focus on structural and operational opportunities
• Compliment nutrient management planning
26
Field Walks Build on Desktop Evaluation
Desktop Evaluation After Field Walk
Conservation Field Walks
28
Stream Crossing
29
Buffer
Conservation Field Walks
30
Poorly Drained Area
Conservation Field Walks
2015 Field Walk Accomplishments
• Field walks on 91 of 109 fields • 10 more after corn grain harvested
• Identified 2 to 3 “hard” practices per field 200-300 practices
• 5 to 8 “soft” practices
• Began implementation
31
Silver Creek AM Pilot Funding
• Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant
• Ducks Unlimited grant
• Fund for Lake Michigan grant
• Natural Resources Damage Assessment grant
• NEW Water
Silver Creek AM Progress
APRIL 15, 2011
APRIL 15, 2011
• Coordination of partnerships work in Pilot
• Inventory – before and after implementation
• Water quality monitoring – started in fall of 2013
• Soil samples at 2.5 acre grids – 2014
• Grants - NRDA, Ducks Unlimited, EPA
• Conservation planning – 2015
• GIS development - 2015
• Snap plus modeling
• Implementation - 2016
Observations Impactful to the Pilot Project
• Diverse field walk teams yields new perspectives and multiple options for conservation opportunities
• Every field has a need
• Individualized review important, commonalities apparent
• Culture of “why should I do it”
• Contracts may not be required, or possible, for some growers
• Growers are stewards, but are businessmen first
• Grower trust is critical, but is variable
Next Steps
• Refine Conservation Plans and Enhanced Nutrient Management Plans
• “Kitchen table” meetings with growers and owners
• SWAT Modeling
• Implementation in 2016
• Continue to evaluate AM feasibility for permit decision in 2018
is Looking for Partners
top related