Download Lower Fox River TMDL PDF

TitleLower Fox River TMDL
LanguageEnglish
File Size6.6 MB
Total Pages177
Table of Contents
                            COVER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
	1.1. Background
	1.2. Problem Statement
	1.3. Restoration Goals
2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
	2.1. History of the Basin
	2.2. Watershed Characteristics
	2.3. Water Quality
3.0 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
	3.1. Parameters of Concern and Applicable Water Quality Criteria
	3.2. Numeric Water Quality Targets
4.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT
	4.1. Analysis of Phosphorus and Sediment Loading
	4.2. Summary of Baseline Sources of Phosphorus and Sediment Loading
5.0 DETERMINATION OF LOAD CAPACITY
	5.1. Linking Phosphorus and Sediment Loading to the Numeric Water Quality Targets
	5.2. Critical Conditions
	5.3. Loading Capacity
6.0 POLLUTANT LOAD ALLOCATIONS
	6.1. In-Basin Sources
	6.2. Oneida Reservation
	6.3. Out-of-Basin Sources
	6.4. Margin of Safety
	6.5. Reserve Capacity
	6.6. Seasonal Variation
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
	7.1. Reasonable Assurance for Implementation
	7.2. Watershed Management Plan for Waters within the Oneida Reservation
	7.3. Follow-up Monitoring
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
	8.1. Public Notice
	8.2. Stakeholder Engagement, Public Outreach, and Public Participation
	8.3. Technical Team
	8.4. Ad-Hoc Science Team
9.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A. ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE NUMERIC WATER QUALITY TARGETS
APPENDIX B. SWAT WATERSHED MODELING ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C. TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAD ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF MS4 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
APPENDIX E. MAPS OF TP AND TSS YIELD FOR THE FOX-WOLF BASINS
APPENDIX F. POTENTIALLY RESTORABLE WETLANDS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX G. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX H. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

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



Brown, Calumet, Outagamie, and Winnebago Counties,
Wisconsin




March 2012





Prepared for:



Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources

Oneida Tribe of
Indians of Wisconsin




U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency





Prepared by:


http://www.epa.gov/
http://dnr.wi.gov/

Page 2

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Restoration Goals ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................... 6
2.1. History of the Basin .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.3. Water Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ........................................................................... 18
3.1. Parameters of Concern and Applicable Water Quality Criteria ....................................................... 18
3.2. Numeric Water Quality Targets ............................................................................................................ 20

4.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.1. Analysis of Phosphorus and Sediment Loading ................................................................................. 23
4.2. Summary of Baseline Sources of Phosphorus and Sediment Loading ............................................ 32

5.0 DETERMINATION OF LOAD CAPACITY ..................................................................................... 36
5.1. Linking Phosphorus and Sediment Loading to the Numeric Water Quality Targets ................... 36
5.2. Critical Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 36
5.3. Loading Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 37

6.0 POLLUTANT LOAD ALLOCATIONS ............................................................................................... 40
6.1. In-Basin Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 40
6.2. Oneida Reservation ................................................................................................................................. 40
6.3. Out-of-Basin Sources .............................................................................................................................. 41
6.4. Margin of Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 41
6.5. Reserve Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 41
6.6. Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................................................... 42

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................... 88
7.1. Reasonable Assurance for Implementation ......................................................................................... 88
7.2. Watershed Management Plan for Waters within the Oneida Reservation ..................................... 91
7.3. Follow-up Monitoring............................................................................................................................. 92

8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................................... 93
8.1. Public Notice ............................................................................................................................................ 93
8.2. Stakeholder Engagement, Public Outreach, and Public Participation ............................................ 93
8.3. Technical Team ........................................................................................................................................ 95
8.4. Ad-Hoc Science Team ............................................................................................................................ 96

9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 97
APPENDIX A. ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE NUMERIC WATER QUALITY TARGETS . 101
APPENDIX B. SWAT WATERSHED MODELING ANALYSIS ....................................................... 104
APPENDIX C. TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND LOAD ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY ... 123
APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF MS4 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS ............................................ 133
APPENDIX E. MAPS OF TP AND TSS YIELD FOR THE FOX-WOLF BASINS ....................... 135
APPENDIX F. POTENTIALLY RESTORABLE WETLANDS ANALYSIS .................................... 137
APPENDIX G. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES .............. 145
APPENDIX H. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ....................................................................................... 148

Page 88

Acres % of Total
Baseline 237,339 9,157 17.0%
TMDL 114,263 3,183 5.9%
Reduction 123,076 36,779 68.4%
% Reduction Needed 51.9% 297 0.6%

4,328 8.1%
Daily TMDL (lbs/day) 312.83 53,744 100.0%

Baseline Allocated Reduction
12,779 3,291 9,488 74.2% 9.01

1,618 1,618 - - 4.43
454 454 - - 1.24

14,851 5,363 9,488 63.9% 14.68
23,557 16,490 7,067 30.0% 45.15

1,114 1,114 - - 3.05
275 275 - - 0.75

107,245 41,713 65,532 61.1% 114.20
83,935 42,946 40,989 48.8% 117.58

6,362 6,362 - - 17.42
222,488 108,900 113,588 51.1% 298.15
237,339 114,263 123,076 51.9% 312.83

Baseline Allocated Reduction
579 405.3 173.7 30.0% 1.11

5,239 3,667.3 1,571.7 30.0% 10.04
437 305.9 131.1 30.0% 0.84

49 34.3 14.7 30.0% 0.09
217 151.9 65.1 30.0% 0.42

2,079 1,455.3 623.7 30.0% 3.98
1,085 759.5 325.5 30.0% 2.08
4,637 3,245.9 1,391.1 30.0% 8.89

738 516.6 221.4 30.0% 1.41
10 7.0 3.0 30.0% 0.02

3 2.1 0.9 30.0% 0.01
739 517.3 221.7 30.0% 1.42
830 581.0 249.0 30.0% 1.59
543 380.1 162.9 30.0% 1.04
151 105.7 45.3 30.0% 0.29
974 681.8 292.2 30.0% 1.87

1,638 1,146.6 491.4 30.0% 3.14
252 176.4 75.6 30.0% 0.48

3,163 2,214.1 948.9 30.0% 6.06
194 135.8 58.2 30.0% 0.37

Baseline Allocated Reduction
9,645 4,174 5,471 56.7% 11.43
749 749 - - 2.05
570 570 - - 1.56

3,826 3,826 - - 10.48

21,200 6,558 14,642 69.1% 17.95

629 629 - - 1.72
2,499 927 1,572 62.9% 2.54
72 72 - - 0.20

20,268 5,648 14,620 72.1% 15.46

1,166 1,166 - - 3.19

238 238 - - 0.65
6,971 3,623 3,348 48.0% 9.92
36 36 - - 0.10
313 313 - - 0.86
37,855 11,976 25,879 68.4% 32.79

1,208 1,208 - - 3.31

Baseline Allocated Reduction
13,414 7,556 5,858 43.7% 20.69

5,565 4,943 622 11.2% 13.53
7,730 3,110 4,620 59.8% 8.51

26,059 17,349 8,710 33.4% 47.50
11,509 3,467 8,042 69.9% 9.49
19,412 6,275 13,137 67.7% 17.18

246 246 - - 0.67
Neenah - Menasha
Wrightstown

TOTAL (WLA + LA)

WWTF Reserve Capacity

% Reduction
from Baseline

Appleton
Ashwaubenon
Buchanan
CombLocks
DePere
GrandChute

Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr)

Lawrence
Ledgeview
LittleChute
Menasha
Neenah

Green Bay

Harrison
Howard
Kaukauna
Kimberly

Heart of the Valley

Natural Background
LOAD ALLOCATION

Allocated
(lbs/day)

General Permits

Green Bay MSD
Grand Chute - Menasha West

Appleton

WWTF-Municipal

Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Pulliam

Thilmany LLC - Kaukauna
Thilmany LLC - DePere
Schroeder's Greenhouse
SCA Tissue North America

Cellu Tissue - Neenah
Fox Energy LLC

Green Bay Packaging - Green Bay

WWTF-Industrial

WASTELOAD ALLOCATION

Allocated
(lbs/day)

Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr)

Urban (MS4) % Reduction
from Baseline

LOWER FOX RIVER MAINSTEM

Construction
Natural Background

Land Use
Agriculture
Urban (non-regulated)
Urban (MS4)

Sub-basin Loading Summary (lbs/yr)

Agriculture

TOTAL

Sources
Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr)

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS

% Reduction
from Baseline

WWTF-Industrial

Construction

Urban (non-regulated)

Urban (MS4)

GBMSD - De Pere

Procter & Gamble

Appleton Coated LLC

Pechiney Plastic Packaging - Menasha
001

NewPage Wisconsin Systems -
Kimberly

Menasha Electric & Water Utility
Neenah Paper, Inc.

Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
{ex FJGBE}
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
{ex FJGBW}

WWTF-Municipal
Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/yr) % Reduction

from Baseline
Allocated
(lbs/day)

Greenville

T_Menasha
T_Neenah

Allocated
(lbs/day)

Allouez

Page 89

Acres % of Total
Baseline 23,980,196 9,157 17.0%
TMDL 11,115,433 3,183 5.9%
Reduction 12,864,763 36,779 68.4%
% Reduction Needed 53.6% 297 0.6%

4,328 8.1%
Daily TMDL (lbs/day) 30,432 53,744 100.0%

Baseline Allocated Reduction
4,942,324 1,881,910 3,060,414 61.9% 5,152

475,960 475,960 - - 1,303
128,777 128,777 - - 353

5,547,061 2,486,647 3,060,414 55.2% 6,808
13,693,558 4,765,188 8,928,370 65.2% 13,046

1,094,974 218,995 875,979 80.0% 600
79,753 79,753 - - 218

2,378,520 2,378,520 - - 6,512
1,133,351 1,133,351 - - 3,103

52,979 52,979 - 145
18,433,135 8,628,786 9,804,349 53.2% 23,624
23,980,196 11,115,433 12,864,763 53.6% 30,432

Baseline Allocated Reduction
285,657 99,405 186,252 65.2% 272

3,030,547 1,054,593 1,975,954 65.2% 2,887
299,242 104,132 195,110 65.2% 285

28,603 9,953 18,650 65.2% 27
123,837 43,094 80,743 65.2% 118

1,102,905 383,797 719,108 65.2% 1,051
524,839 182,637 342,202 65.2% 500

3,084,098 1,073,228 2,010,870 65.2% 2,938
373,661 130,029 243,632 65.2% 356

7,086 2,466 4,620 65.2% 7
2,220 773 1,447 65.2% 2

410,816 142,959 267,857 65.2% 391
535,583 186,376 349,207 65.2% 510
198,889 69,211 129,678 65.2% 189

66,978 23,308 43,670 65.2% 64
539,026 187,574 351,452 65.2% 514

1,060,370 368,996 691,374 65.2% 1,010
159,612 55,543 104,069 65.2% 152

1,743,480 606,709 1,136,771 65.2% 1,661
116,109 40,404 75,705 65.2% 111

Baseline Allocated Reduction
249,129 249,129 - - 682

53,937 53,937 - - 148
5,042 5,042 - - 14

105,698 105,698 - - 289

175,717 175,717 - - 481

108,259 108,259 - - 296
81,301 81,301 - - 223

239 239 - - 1

111,969 111,969 - - 307

3,373 3,373 - - 9

155,432 155,432 - - 426
136,023 136,023 - - 372

341 341 - - 1
29,003 29,003 - - 79

1,122,241 1,122,241 - - 3,073

40,816 40,816 - - 112

Baseline Allocated Reduction
169,857 169,857 - - 465

50,297 50,297 - - 138
225,925 225,925 - - 619
354,861 354,861 - - 972
147,003 147,003 - - 402
180,258 180,258 - - 494

5,150 5,150 - - 14

Green Bay
Greenville
Harrison

WWTF-Municipal
Total Suspended Solids Load (lbs/yr) % Reduction

from Baseline
Allocated
(lbs/day)

LittleChute

Howard
Kaukauna

WWTF-Industrial
Total Suspended Solids Load (lbs/yr) % Reduction

from Baseline

Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Pulliam

Green Bay Packaging - Green Bay
Neenah Paper, Inc.
Menasha Electric & Water Utility
NewPage Wisconsin Systems -
Kimberly

Menasha
Neenah

Allocated
(lbs/day)

% Reduction
from Baseline

Allocated
(lbs/day)

Allouez
Appleton
Ashwaubenon

Total Suspended Solids Load (lbs/yr)

LOAD ALLOCATION

WASTELOAD ALLOCATION

Urban (MS4)
Total Suspended Solids Load (lbs/yr)

DePere
GrandChute

LOWER FOX RIVER MAINSTEM
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS

Thilmany LLC - Kaukauna

Land Use
Agriculture

Sub-basin Loading Summary (lbs/yr)

Urban

Construction
Natural Background

TOTAL

Sources % Reduction
from Baseline

Urban-MS4

WWTF-Municipal
WWTF Reserve Capacity

Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
{ex FJGBW}

Agriculture
Urban (non-regulated)

Urban (MS4)
Construction
General Permits

Natural Background

WWTF-Industrial

Appleton Coated LLC
Cellu Tissue - Neenah
Fox Energy LLC
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
{ex FJGBE}

Kimberly
Lawrence
Ledgeview

T_Menasha
T_Neenah

Buchanan
CombLocks

SCA Tissue North America
Schroeder's Greenhouse
Thilmany LLC - DePere

Allocated
(lbs/day)

Pechiney Plastic Packaging - Menasha
001
Procter & Gamble

Appleton
GBMSD - De Pere
Grand Chute - Menasha West
Green Bay MSD
Heart of the Valley
Neenah - Menasha
Wrightstown

TOTAL (WLA + LA)

Page 176

171


73. Comment: We strongly encourage costs to be considered during implementation planning for this
TMDL. (CSWEA, Village of Ashwaubenon, City of Appleton, GBMSD)


Response: Comment noted.


74. Comment: The creation of compliance schedules that allow POTWs to reduce TP and TSS over
multiple WPDES permits would lessen the economic hardship on rate payers and similar to NR 217
setting reduced limit over to 2 or 3 permit cycles would allow for the treatment technology to mature
(to reduce capital and O&M costs). (City of Appleton)


Response: Please see response to Comment #69. WDNR realizes the importance of flexible
schedules to comply with water quality standards and TMDL WLAs in permits.


Implementation Agriculture

75. Comment: The potential that most, if not all, the TP and TSS reductions needed from load

reductions, will likely be imposed on WPDES permitted farms is troubling. It is unlikely there will be
adequate cost share funding to broadly implement TP and TSS reductions on all farms in the LFR
watershed. That leaves 15 CAFOs in the LFR watershed to bear the brunt of any TMDL
implementation measures. (DBA)


Response: As identified in the Reasonable Assurance Section (7.1) of the TMDL report, all crop
and livestock producers in the LFR Basin will be required to comply with state agricultural
performance standards and prohibitions in Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Further
reductions beyond this for CAFOs and non-CAFOs would be identified through the TMDL
implementation planning process.


76. Comment: When WPDES CAFO permits are reissued will they contain additional land spreading

restrictions that are “consistent with” the TP and TSS load reductions assigned to agriculture?
WPDES permitted farms already comply with the most stringent nutrient management planning
requirements (meet T and PI of 6) to meet crop needs. Imposing further limitations on tillage
practices and nutrient application may well render fields in the LFR basin non-farmable which would
have a devastating impact on the already struggling Wisconsin dairy industry. (DBA)


Response: Further limitations on WPDES permitted CAFOs, if needed, will be identified through
the implementation planning process. It should be noted that CAFOs have achieved PI’s less than 6
using current farming BMPs. The impact of further reductions in PI requirements, should they
occur, would be highly dependant on current farming practices and may or may not require
significant changes at an operation.


77. Comment: Firm regulatory requirements and the need for cost-sharing for agricultural dischargers

are necessary and must be implemented if water quality is to improve. (Village of Ashwaubenon,
Village of Allouez, GBMSD, City of De Pere, Village of Bellevue)


Response: WDNR agrees that state and local regulations, in conjunction with cost-sharing to
address agricultural sources of TP and TSS, are a critical component of TMDL implementation.

Page 177

172


78. Comment: WDNR should work with counties to develop nutrient management plans for priority
farms in each sub-watershed. WDNR should set dates to perform on site monitoring in order to
ensure the plans are being followed. (MEA and Clean Wisconsin)


Response: It is expected that most compliance checks on non-permitted operations will occur
through local agencies (counties, towns) with WDNR monitoring compliance for WPDES-permitted
CAFOs.


Other Implementation Comments

79. Comment: Members of CSWEA-Wisconsin could be a valuable resource to WDNR on

implementation issues such as cost-benefit evaluations, NPDES permit language, water quality
trading and monitoring and would like to be involved as a partner in developing an implementation
plan for the Lower Fox River Basin. (CSWEA)


Response: Comment noted.

Similer Documents