Lower Fox River - Green Bay TMDL Strategies, Practices and Restoration Goals

Kevin Fermanich, Paul Baumgart, UW – Green Bay

Nutrient Management & Edge of Field Monitoring Conference: Great Lakes to the Gulf

Memphis, TN Dec 1 -3, 2015

TRIBUTARIES, FOX RIVER, BAY SUFFER FROM

EUTROPHICATION, HYPOXIA, HABITAT DEGRADATION

August 29, 2013AOC

Outcomes -Heightened public awareness & interest →

nlcd_2011_landcover_2011_edition_2014_03_31.img

Land_Cover

Barren Land

Cultivated Crops

Deciduous Forest

Developed, High Intensity

Developed, Low Intensity

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, Open Space

Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands

Evergreen Forest

Hay/Pasture

Herbaceuous

Mixed Forest

Open Water

Perennial Snow/Ice

Shrub/Scrub

Unclassified

Woody Wetlands

Wolf R.

(NLCD 2011)

Green Bay landscapes

and land-uses

*

*

Lower

Fox

Upper FoxL. Winn.

ANNUAL FOX RIVER TP EXPORT TO GREEN BAY AND

WWTP DISCHARGES

(Data Sources: Fox R. Loads: D. Robertson, USGS; Discharge data: WDNR; graph by UWGB)

• Dairy has

significant role

in the

Green Bay

Watershed

• CAFOs in LFR

– was 15

– now 21

27 Impaired Water Body Segments by

Phosphorus and/or Sediment

Approved TMDL 2006-2012

Science and Technical Advisory

Comm.

Map of Lower Fox River Basin and Green Bay

Source: TMDL Plan, WDNR 6/2010; 12/2011

The Mouth of the Fox River. April 12, 2011Credit: Steve Seilo

Restoration Goals

• Reduce excess algal growth(reduce the risks associated with algal increase light penetration into deeper waters of the bay)

• Increase water clarity in Lower Green Bay. (allow photosynthesis to occur at deeper levels in the bay, improve conditions for recreational activities)

• Increase growth of beneficial submerged aquatic vegetation in Lower Green Bay (reduce the re-suspension of sediment particles)

• Increase dissolved oxygen levels (support aquatic life in the tributary streams and main stem of the Lower Fox River)

• Restore degraded habitat

2006-2012

Wisconsin

Phosphorus

Rule

• Dec. 2010

• Set Criteria

• WPDES

permits

• Ag

performance

• LFR TMDL (2006-2012)

• Adaptive

Mgmt

Option

• P Trading

LOWER FOX RIVER TARGETS LINKED TO

BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES

Lower Fox River TMDL (Cadmus (WDNR/EPA/Oneida) 2011, 2012)

LOWER FOX BASIN P SOURCES (~2004-2009)

• SWAT model developed from robust monitoring

• Integrative Allocation Process (modeling, monitoring, policy)

• P Reduction target of 59% (LFB); 43% reduction in total export

~114,000 kg

<91,000 kg

~40,000 kg

(from 2012 TMDL report)

29 MS4s

32 Pt S

ANNUAL FOX RIVER TP EXPORT TO GREEN BAY AND

WWTP DISCHARGES

TMDL

Target

TMDL

base

(Data Sources: Fox R. Loads: D. Robertson, USGS; Discharge data: WDNR; graph by UWGB)

Watershed loading models

Down-scaled Climate models

Biogeochemical models

Green Bay Project: Goal → develop linked models → better

informed management

Hydrodynamic models

NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean ResearchCoastal Hypoxia Research ProgramNOAA-NOS-NCCOS

Green Bay WQ Model: Load-Response

May 2012

Fox River

to Green BayWhat do we know about landscape sources?

INTENSIVE, ROBUST

MONITORING

2003-2015 • Cont. Flow, P & TSS,

daily loads

• 9+ sites (3 yrs ea.*)

• 37+ WY-watershed

loads

• ~55% of LFB area

• Mostly ag dominated

• Plus: Farm Catchment

sites (BMP evaluation)

• Partners: USGS, UWM,

DNR, Oneida, NEW Water,

GLRI, others)

3%

U. East

2012-14W. Plum

2005

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2004

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2006

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2007

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2008

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2009

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2010

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2011

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2012

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2013

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

2014

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

%2%2

%2%2

!.

!.

!.!.

LFwsh_2005TP

Sheet1$.2005_TP_kg-ha

0.0 - 0.50

0.51 - 1.00

1.01 - 1.50

1.51 - 2.00

2.01 - 2.50

2.51 - 3.00

3.01 - 3.50

Total P (kg/ha)

Load monitoring in LFR basin. Green areas = no flow or conc. for that year.

UWGB

Approximate

Target

~50% DP

GLRI and other projects

in-progress• Targeted• Multi-

scale

Sediment and P export highly variable spatially and temporally

TSS export (MT/ha)

TP export (kg/ha)

MFC 5 May 6, 2012

Field level Observations (what are drivers?)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 Main

Source area P Concentrations(at ~peak flow for 4 events)

Site

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg/

l) Dissolved PhosphorusParticulate Phosphorus

• Variation among sites and events (n= 67)• TP Median = 1.03 mg/L• Only 2 samples < 0.5 mg/L TP

Influence of Management example

MFC 15

Runoff Dissolved P linked to

Soil P levels

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1a 1b 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 8a 8b 8c INT-3 INT-4 INT-6 INT-7 Main

Monitoring Sites

Dis

so

lve

d P

ho

sp

ho

rus

(m

g/L

)

Low

Excessive

2a

2b

3

4

5a5b

8a

8b

8c

1a

y = 0.005x + 0.0085

R2 = 0.8293

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Weighted Ave. Soil Test P (Bray P1 - mg/kg)

To

tal D

iss

olv

ed

Ph

os

ph

oru

s (

mg

/L)

P-Index Challenges and Questions• Average area-weighted MFC PI

– 2011 = 1.88 2012 = 2.06

• PI required by state = 6

• High sediment & P conc.

– Summer low flow median TP = 0.35 mg/L (target TP = 0.075)

• Can we improve water quality using the current PI approach and implementation?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 0.5 1 1.5

Watershed Phosphorus Yields (kg/ha)

P-

Ind

ex

PI after 590 compliance

PI to meet water quality goals

PI before 590 compliance

Year 2011 NASS CroplandLand cover

(modeled as combination of 2006-2011 NASS CDL’s & other images)

Soil Hydrologic Group

Brown = higher runoff , less base flow

Yellow= low runoff, high base flow

Stream Monitoring Stations for calibration & validation

4 SWAT models~371 sub-watersheds

SWAT Simulated Total Phosphorus Yields (kg/ha)

from Fox-Wolf Basin(WY2009-13 climate,

Routed to Lower Green Bay)

• Source types and magnitude at multiple scales

• Target

• Management System Implementation Impacts

• Climate Change Impacts

P Reduction: Alternative Management Scenarios(Outlet of Fox R., WY2009-13 climate)

Alternative Management ScenariosMore feasible Tillage, & Soil-P & Cover Crops

What about targeting these high P areas with a combination of alternative management?

Phosphorus TARGET

Threshold (kg/ha)

Total P (kg)

% of Fox-Wolf Basin Non-Pt. Load to Bay

(base= 566,200 kg)

Total Area

Affected (sq. Km)

Total Area Affected

( % )0.50 340,845 60.2% 2,911 18.0%

Alternative Management ScenariosCover Crops, Reduced-Till, Targeted High P sub-watersheds, +grazing

Targeted high P export sub-watersheds

Inner Bay

Inner Bay 325% reduction sig. impact farther out in the bay

Green Bay WQ Model: Load-Response

Late Fall 2014: “..field conditions…parallel last year [Fall 2013]”

What are the combined impacts of poor weather on net

watershed P export and soil health? (short-term and long term)

“Late maturity, high grain moistures, and wet fields caused harvest activities to progress slowly during October, with the waterlogged northeast persistently behind the rest of the state.” 2014 WISCONSIN CROP PROGRESS

REVIEW

Major Recent Challenge:

June 2, 2014

May 12, 2014

Cty Rd D USGS/UWGB station; 59% of Plum Creek

watershed area (54 km2). Photos from W. Plum ~ other

39% of area.

(14,000 acres)

4,521 kg/d

Last 4 years:

11 days >1000 kg/d

2014: Total Load =

~2x GBMSD

EVENT DRIVEN LOADS

5 LFR Tribs, WY04-06:

• 65% of the annual P load

• 80% of the annual TSS load

…exported to the Fox River in only

14 days per year on average

Lower Fox Watersheds- P

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 1% 10% 100%

Cumulative time percentage

Cu

mu

lati

ve

% o

f P

ho

sp

ho

rus

Lo

ad

P%-Apple

P%-Ash

P%-Baird

P%-Duck

P%-East

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations

Report 2011–5111, 28

MAIN POINTS AND CHALLENGES

• LFR and Green Bay excess algae & low DO common

• >80% of P is from landscape sources ag is key player

• Concentrations and loads from most watersheds well

above targets (dissolved P significant)

• Landscape is vulnerable to loss and export

– Especially during Events: need to reduce risks

– And during suboptimum (risky) conditions for manure

applications

• Ag sources significant contributors

– Current nutrient management approaches will not get us to WQ

goals (PI = 6)

– Known practices can reduce losses and vulnerability

– lower soil P levels, cover crops, reduced till, grass, etc.,

– flow path protection, strategic wetlands, etc.

– Soil Health initiatives WQ?

– Extent of Implementation

4/12/2011

• ~50% of NPS load to bay is from LFR and L. Winn sub-basins

• Reducing soil-P and tillage, plus cover crops >40% reduction IF basin wide implementation

• Targeting high P watersheds (~18% of basin) >23% reduction

• >10% increase in P export under future climate & base management

• Intermediate progress improvements in bay

• Current set of improvement practices will lessen climate impacts but not suffice to reach WQ goals

• Promising actions in the watershed: LFR Demo Farms, Silver Creek Pilot Project, GLRI, grazing, farmer innovators, manure management options, Upper Fox-Wolf TMDL, etc.,

• Farmer and policy engagement increasing

• Cows (manure P) vs. cropland acreage

– Manure technology

• Tile drainage export and management (?)

• Legacy P?

MAIN POINTS AND CHALLENGES

SILVER CREEK ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT OPTION PILOT

Intensive conservation inventory found: 5-7 practices are needed per field (3 hard practices and the rest soft practices).109 fields 500 – 700 practices needed.

900 samples

IMPROVING SOIL HEALTH FOR

WATER QUALITY (?) AND

PRODUCTIVITY: LFR DEMO FARMS

Field-Scale Baseline Assessment

• 800 acres on 4+ farms• ~200 samples from a 2.5 ac “grid”

sampling (n=400 samples)• 10 core composite (7”)• 4-5 yr follow-up

The Lower Bay, Mouth of Duck Creek, Mouth of the Fox River.

Aerial photo taken 4/12/2011. Photo credit: Steve Seilo (www.photodynamix.com)

Thank You!

Comprehensive BMP ImplementationPlum Creek Sub-watershed Scenarios

Alexis Heim -UWGB

Baseline Conditions (15 yr annual avg.)

75% Ag

GOOD NEWS!

P AND TSS TRENDS IN DUCK CREEK

– Flow (25 yr, 1989-2013)

– TP & DP (25 yr)

– TSS (2004-13)

– 4 statistical tests

DECREASE in TP and DP

– Sig. DECREASE ‘04-’13

PARTNERS: Cooperators

• UW-Green Bay, UW-Milwaukee

• NOAA; US Geological Survey

• U. Mich Water Center, WDNR

• Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd

• GBMSD, Oneida Tribe of Indians

• 11 High Schools

• US Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Science and Policy Graduate Program Students:Alexis Heim, Andrew DocterMarty Jacobson, Dan Cibulka, Nick Reckinger many other students

Lower Fox River Watershed Monitoring Program (www.uwgb.edu/WATERSHED)Natural & Applied Sciences Dept. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Comprehensive BMP ImplementationPlum Creek Sub-watershed Scenarios

Alexis Heim -UWGB

58-61%~70%

P

Climate Change Scenarios:Downscaled, projected climate 2046-65. A1B emission scenario. • ECHO 2012 (2nd warmest GCM, as

projected)• MRI 2012 (2nd coolest GCM, as

projected)

Meteorological Research Institute Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model, version 2.3.2 (D. Lorenz, Ctr Climate Research/WICCI, U. Wis.)• CO2 changed to 550 ppm% Precip change from baseline

SeasonsMRI Warmer/Wetter

climate modelWinter 28%Spring 10%Summer 5%Autumn 10%

SeasonsChange Max °C

Change Min °C

Winter (Dec-Feb) +3.9 +4.8Spring (Mar-May) +2.2 +2.5Summer (Jun-Aug) +1.9 +2.5Autumn (Sep-Nov) +2.3 +2.2(Comparison to Appleton, WI station)

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

ECHO (avg 2011-13) MRI (avg 2011-13)

Rel

ativ

e C

han

ge P

red

icte

d b

y SW

AT

(%)

SWAT-Simulated Climate Change Scenarios: Fox River Outlet

Flow TSS TP

UWGB Sept 2015

Under current management, how will loads at the Fox R. outlet change under projected climate?

v. warm, moist

~10+% increase P

warmer, wetter

How will alternative management perform under projected climate?Plum Creek Sub-watershed Scenarios

Alexis Heim -UWGB

• Calibrated: SWAT Model• 3 – 11 yr. Measured Average P Export

LFwsh_2005TP

Sheet1$.2005_TP_kg-ha

0.0 - 0.50

0.51 - 1.00

1.01 - 1.50

1.51 - 2.00

2.01 - 2.50

2.51 - 3.00

3.01 - 3.50

Total P (kg/ha)

Measured vs Simulated: These have been iterative. In some cases the monitoring informed

modelling and others modelling informed monitoring. They present a similar story and

provide confidence to how well we understand the system.

Protecting flow

paths

Not cropped –grass waterway (vegetated buffer strip)

Cropped –conservation tillage

cropped

Green Bay MAT: User-Define Statistics (Aggregation/Time Period)

• Dairy has

significant role

in the

Green Bay

Watershed