From the Lake to the Watersheds Issues, Impacts, Needs and Opportunities

1
From the Lake to the Watersheds Issues,
Impacts, Needs and Opportunities
Victoria Harris UW Sea Grant Institute H.J.
Harris UW Green Bay
2
Essential Messages

• Clean water there is no substitute
• The majority of stressors to Lake Michigan stem
  from land use and human activities in the
  watersheds
• Improving and protecting the Lake requires sound
  land use planning and watershed management

3
Fox-Wolf Basin

• Largest tributary to Lake Michigan and 3rd
  largest to Great Lakes (drainage area 64,000 mi2)
• Largest source of pollutants to Green Bay and
  Lake Michigan
• Land Useagriculture 51 forest 23wetland 12
  water 7.4urban 3.6 roads 3.3
• Clay loam soils erodible and high in phosphorus

4
Fox-Wolf Basin has 3 subbasins
5

6
RAP Process

• Set Specific Targets/Objectives
• 120 Remedial Actions, and Implementation
  Strategies
• Monitor Indicators and Report

• 11 of 14 Beneficial Uses Impaired
• ID Stressors
• Causes and Sources
• Involve Public
• 8 Primary Goals

7
Most Problems Related to Excess Phosphorus and
Suspended Solids

• Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations
• Degradation of Benthos
• Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
• Beach Closings

• Degradation of Aesthetics
• Degradation of Phytoplankton Zooplankton
  Populations
• Loss of Fish Wildlife Habitat

8
Environmental Risk Priority Rankings for Green
Bay

• 1- Habitat losses due to shoreline development
  and land filling
• - Non-native species introductions
• 2- Persistent organic toxics (PCBs)
• 3- Heavy metals (Hg)
• 4- Phosphorus and suspended solids loadings

9
Impacts of Phosphorus Loads (Annual load from Fox
R. 450-600,000 kg/yr)

• Excessive/nuisance algae growth (eutrophication)
• Poor aesthetics
• Lost tourism
• Lower property values
• Drinking water taste odor problem
• Altered food webs
• DO fluctuations
• Ammonia and blue-green algae toxicity

10
Action Reduce Annual Average TP Load from Fox
River by 50 to achieve AOC summer mean
concentration of 45 ppb
1970s Average 206 ppb
1980s Average 146 ppb
1990s Average 144 ppb
Goal 45 ppb
11
Color-enhanced infa-red satellite images
reflecting chlorophyll concentrations (July 1984)
Target Summer mean concentration of 11 ug/l
12
Targeting the Watershed Cost Effective
Reduction of Nutrient and Sediment Loads
13
NEEDS
Satellite Imagery September 8, 2002
www.ercs.wisc.edu
14
How might we set a target load limit for P and SS
which will protect the integrity of receiving
waters?
15
How close are we to that target?

• Predicted change in chlorophyll a and percent
  blue-green algae for incremental reductions in P

16
How close are we to that target?
17
Water Clarity Secchi Disc Readings in Inner
Green Bay, 1986-1999Summer Average Secchi Disc
Readings
Minimal objective 0.7 m
RAP objective 1.3 m
Source Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
18
Monitoring on different scales will identify
critical source areas basin-wide and within
individual watersheds.
19
Flows and loads calculated by Dale Robertson
(USGS)
Flow at Main Branch Sites
20
Loads at Main Branch Sites
21
Yields at Main Branch Sites
22
Some conclusions from data set

• 55 of phosphorus load at the mouth of the lower
  Fox originates in the upper Fox and Wolf
  sub-basins.
• Of the 275 m.t. of P from the upper Fox and Wolf,
  point sources account for 32 m.t. or about 12 of
  the total.
• The Wolf at New London contributes 26 m.t. more
  phosphorus (23) than the upper Fox at Berlin.

23
Some conclusions from data set

• 23 of the phosphorus load to Green Bay comes
  from the segment between Wrightstown and the
  mouth of the Fox, which constitutes 3.4 of the
  land areas of the entire Fox/Wolf basin.
• 47 of the total suspended solid load at the
  mouth of the river comes from the segment between
  Wrightstown and the mouth. 36 of the total is
  added between DePere and the mouth.

24
Begin to reconsider cost effectiveness in
reducing loads at least cost assume 50
reduction

• Urban vs. Rural?

25
Point Sources
26
Where will reductions come from?
27
Where will reductions come from?
28
Where will reductions come from?
29
Smaller-scale monitoring to identify sources with
greater confidence
30
Cooperative 1.5 million program involving

• 4 High Schools
• University of Wisconsin Green Bay
• University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage District
• Funded by Arjo Wiggins

31
Institutional Needs

• Identify mission, responsibilities, and authority
  of existing conservation programs.
• Conduct unified assessment of soil and water
  conservation achievements.
• Conduct analysis of base funding shortfall.
• Consider significant institutional changes to
  address changing environmental conditions.
• Inform legislature.
• (Source Memorandum from Bill Elman to LWCB and
  Advisors, July 29, 2003.)

32
OPPORTUNITIES
Satellite Imagery September 8, 2002
www.ercs.wisc.edu
33
New Tools

• Modeling

34
New Tools

• Satellite Imagery

35
New Tools

• GIS and Integration

36
New Tools

• Integrated Planning

37
Other Opportunities

• Improve Cooperation among existing agencies,
  institutions, and organizations.
• Encourage watershed ownership by citizens.
• Revitalize Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic

38
Conclusion

• Conservation is getting nowhere because it is
  incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land.
  We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity
  belonging to us. When we see land as a community
  to which we belong, we may begin to use it with
  love and respect. There is no other way for land
  to survive the impact of mechanized man, nor for
  us to reap from it the aesthetic harvest it is
  capable under science of contributing to
  culture.
• Aldo Leopold, forward to A Sand County Almanac