You are on page 1of 14

2015 Sweet Water

Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference

Photo credit: Steve Seilo (www.photodynamix.com)

Planning & Implementing an Adaptive Management Project:
A Case Study in Silver Creek

Why would NEW Water work on AM?
Trends in Fox River TP Export to Green Bay and WWTP Discharges

TMDL
Target

Source: Kevin Fermanich UWGB

1/3 all Nutrients to Lake Michigan From Fox River

NEW Water Background Information
NEW Water
Outfall to Fox
River 9/2013

NEW Water
Effluent
NEW Water 40 MGD
31,624 lbs Phosphorus /yr. discharge less than 3% of total 1.2 million lbs/ yr. Fox/ Wolf
$223 Million dollars estimated for additional treatment for 9,332 lbs P/ yr. TMDL allocation

The Business Case
Lower Fox River TMDL Estimated Capital Costs:
Estimated Costs
Municipal WWTF’s: $400 – $500 million ??

Sources P TMDL
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

Industrial WWTF’s:

$200 million ??

114,429 lbs/ yr

Agriculture

$ ??? (see note)

251,382 lbs/yr

Total:

$800 Million - $1.1 Billion

(2013 FWWA Conference)

Note: Brown
County LWCD
$45 million
dollars on all
Agriculture
BMP’s, Staff, and
Programs from
1983-2012.

NEW Water WPDES Permit Timeline
Year 1 - Operations & Needs Report is due.

Year 2 - Alternatives evaluation update.
Year 3 - Alternatives evaluation plan draft.
Year 4 - Alternatives evaluation plan final.
Adaptive Management or Treatment.
Year 5 - Begin plan, apply for new permit.
Year 7-9 - Meet new permit limits if treatment is
selected.

Why Silver Creek?






Size watershed- 4,800 acres (48 % AG).
Representative Watershed in TMDL.
Self Contained Watershed.
Close to GBMSD service area.
Oneida Tribe cooperation. (50% owner)
Private Agronomists.
Silver Creek restoration –was trout
stream.
• Upstream of West Shore Pike habitat
projects.

Silver Creek

6

Silver Creek Pilot Project Goals
and Management Concepts
• Can we meet WQ standards? .075 mg/L Phosphorus.
• What is economic cost to Agriculture?

• What are economic benefits for Agriculture?
• Sustainable permanent decisions.

• Spend the least amount of dollars to accomplish the greatest
water quality.
Benefit our rate payers , community water quality.

Adaptive Management Model- Silver Creek
Goals
.075 mg/L Phosphorus

Adjust

WQ Monitor

and Model
Evaluate
WQ Monitor
and Model

Plan and
Prioritize
Implement
8

Building Partnerships & Stakeholders Involvement









Landowners and Agriculture Producers
Oneida Tribe
Private Agronomists
County Land and Water Conservation Departments
Natural Resources Conservation Service
USFWS– Natural Resources Damage Assessment - $100,000 grant
Ducks Unlimited - $140,000 grant
EPA – Great Lakes Restoration Initiative - $1.67 million grant
USGS, UWGB, The Nature Conservancy, Alliance Great Lakes.
Clean Wisconsin
Industry, Storm water, Wastewater, Community leaders.

Challenges - What has worked
• What has worked in past:
– Conservation Practices that have an economic benefit to
farmer. (Manure Storage, Barnyards, Nutrient Management)
– Building one on one relationships with agriculture producers.
– Regulation on industry – reduction in loading.
– Buffer Strips.
– Winter spreading plans – requirements.
– Water quality Monitoring.
– Partnerships. (agencies, environmental organizations, people)
– Soil Testing.
– Simple - Conservation Plans - Maps

Challenges – What is difficult –
or hasn’t worked well
• Cost share – administration, equity, sustainability.
– Unfair economically to landowners who use it.

• Water quality improvements –water quality in a
watershed will be maintained or better in 20 years.
• Can we get key high priority fields corrected?
• Can we implement a 590 plan?
• Weather.
• Economics.
• Adequate staff to work on non point
• Time ( 5 year pilot)

Wish list
Some items that Silver Creek Pilot hope to accomplish:
– Opportunities to improve Adaptive Management Process.
– Learn from process and change.
– Opportunities to collaborate with other Adaptive
Management projects to provide consistent and constructive
feedback to DNR as projects learn and adapt.
– Adequate staff (1 technical staff per 20,000 acres cropland?)
– Money
– Time
– Framework for permanent sustainable conservation that
results in water quality and biological response.

Thank You
Bill Hafs
Director Environmental Programs
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District

T: (920) 438-1040
E: whafs@newwater.us
www.newwater.us