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