Lake Michigan’s Green Bay: Why the Dead Zone? What is Needed to Prevent It?

Kevin Fermanich, Paul Baumgart, UW – Green Bay

2015 Science-Policy Confluence Conference: Great Lakes Nutrient Management and Water Quality Northwestern University, Chicago March 26-27, 2015

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 WetlandsLower

Fox

Upper Fox

Wolf R.

(NLCD 2011)

Veins of Green Bay are fed by

these landscapes and land-uses

*

*

RECENT VIEW OF THE GREEN BAY WATERSHED

the Bay

• Dairy has

significant role

in the

Green Bay

Watershed

LOADS NOT DECREASING • Fox River Export of Total P :

– ~ 575,000 kg/yr (1989-2014)

– ~ 615,000 kg/yr (Dolan, Chapra, 2012)

• Lower Fox Basin (LFB) (10% of area)

– ~42% of total P load

• Fox-Wolf Basin ~ 58% of TP load

New

London

Berli

n

Oshkos

h

Neenah/Menasha

Appleton

Wrightstown

DePere

Mouth

(Data Source: D. Robertson, USGS)

Wisconsin

Phosphorus

Rule

• Dec. 2010

• Set Criteria

• WPDES

permits

• Ag

performance

• LFR TMDL (2006-2012)

• Adaptive

Mgmt & P

Trading

27 Impaired Water Body Segments by

Phosphorus and/or Sediment

Approved TMDL 2006-2012

Water Quality criteria:

Lower Fox River: 0.10 mg/L TP

Tributary Streams: 0.075 mg/L TP

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, 2011 Credit: Steve Seilo

LOWER FOX BASIN P SOURCES

• SWAT model developed from robust monitoring

• Reduction target of 59% overall (LFB)

• Note magnitude of Loads

~114,000 kg

<91,000 kg

~40,000 kg

(from 2012 TMDL report)

TRENDS IN FOX RIVER TP EXPORT TO GREEN BAY

AND WWTP DISCHARGES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(1,0

00

kg)

Total Load at Fox River MouthLower Fox MunicipalLower Fox IndustrialUpper Fox Munic. + Indus.Wolf Munic. + Indus.

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

TMDL

Target

May 2012

Fox River

to Green Bay What 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

2012-14 W. Plum

CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTIONS 2004-2014

• Most tributary

watersheds much

above targets

• Smaller, Ag-dominated

largest values

• High conc. observed

in 2014

0.075

Median TP concentrations for

Storm/Event and Base flow samples:

Approximate

Target

~50% DP

GLRI and other projects

in-progress

Sediment and P export highly variable spatially and temporally

TSS export (MT/ha)

TP export (kg/ha)

TRIBUTARY 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

MFC 5 May 6, 2012

Field level Observations

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

Site

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg/

l) Dissolved Phosphorus

Particulate 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

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)

TSS Total P % reduced Sed-P

BMP Scenarios (ton) (kg) TSS Total P (kg)

Baseline 2004 Conditions 9,700 25,800 0 0 12,400

1. Nutrient Management: Dairy P Feed Ration: Reduce by 25%

(implement 90%) 9,700 24,500 0.0% 4.7% $13,600

2. Nutrient Management: incorporate 85% of manure (from 50%) 9,700 24,200 0.1% 6.2% $13,300

3. Nutrient Management: Stabilize Soil P (implement 90%) 9,700 22,700 0.0% 11.9% $12,400

4. Conservation Tillage - CT40%, MT45%, RT15% 7,700 23,400 20.5% 9.0% $10,600

5. Cover Crops on corn silage and some soybean fields 9,400 25,400 2.5% 1.2% $10,100

6. Buffer Strips installed on 100% of 1:24k hydrology streams 9,200 24,400 5.1% 5.1% $9,400

7. Reduce Soil P to 25 ppm (implement 35%) 9,700 20,800 0.0% 19.4% $8,600

8. Biofuel Switchgrass crop; 7% of total crop acres 9,200 24,800 4.9% 3.6% $8,200

9. Combination - ALL BMP's 6,699 16,257 30.8% 36.9% $7,593

IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ON TSS AND PHOSPHORUS NON-POINT LOADS TO

GREEN BAY FROM PLUM-KANKAPOT CREEK WATERSHED

(MOSTLY AG: LF-03 = 218 KM2 OR ~ 13% OF LFR AREA)

From: Lower Fox River and Green Bay TMDL, unpublished values from P. Baumgart, UWGB

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

ACHIEVING WATER QUALITY GOALS WITH THE

WISCONSIN P-INDEX

• Will compliance with nutrient mgmt. standards meet

water quality goals?

(Hypothetical graph created by P. Baumgart 2006)

Continued Improvements:

• Model functionality

• Data inputs and implementation

• Auditing

However, area-weighted PIs show general

compliance but water quality goals a long

way off…

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

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

What is the combined impact of poor weather on net watershed P export? (short-

term and long term)

WEATHER DICTATES TIMING AND

CAPACITY OF THE LAND*

“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

Manure App.

USDA NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

UPPER MIDWEST REGION - WISCONSIN FIELD OFFICE

But…

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.

4,521 kg/d

Last 4 years:

11 days >1000 kg/d

2014: Total Load =

~2x GBMSD

CHALLENGES NOW & AHEAD

• Concentrations and loads from ag watersheds well

above targets

• Landscape is vulnerable to loss and export

– Especially during suboptimum (risky) conditions for manure

applications

– Events: reduce risks

• Dissolved P is significant

• 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, grass, etc.,

– Soil Health initiatives?

– Farmer engagement increasing

– Cows (manure P) vs. cropland acreage

– Tile drainage inputs and management (?)

CHALLENGES NOW & AHEAD • U. Fox and Wolf modeling and TMDL (40% GB load)

• It’s critical that watershed managers and

stakeholders devise comprehensive programs and

implementation strategies that reduce vulnerabilities

and minimize risks, not only during high runoff times

of the year, but also during years with significant

weather constraints for dairy agriculture operations.

• Climate change build resiliency

• Models that link Watershed & Bay – watershed P export WQ endpoints in the bay

• Adaptive Mgmt., Fox P-Trade….

• Can we change to meet the challenge?

Brinkley in

“Green” Bay

July 4, 2014 Stephen Deadman

4/12/2011

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

29

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!

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 Docter (soil health poster later) Marty 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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

% O

rth

o-P

10

00

kg/

yr

Phosphorus Load at Mouth of Fox River, Green Bay

Particulate P

Ortho-P

% Ortho-P

(Data Source: D. Robertson, USGS)

LOWER FOX RIVER TARGETS LINKED TO

BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES

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

PLUM Creek at USGS Station

Flow (mm) Sed (ton) P (kg)

WY2011 333 6,979 13,811

WY2012 133 3,509 6,122

WY2013 282 6,504 12,868

WY2014 262 11,651 18,691

average 253 7,161 12,873

yields 333 1.32 2.37

May 12, 2014