fermanich - lower fox river - green bay tmdl
Post on 13-Apr-2017
464 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related