Brown County Phosphorus Committee
Introduction
In March 2012, the Brown County Executive Troy Streckenbach created the Brown County Economic Task
Force comprised of four committees. The Phosphorus Committee’s charge was to develop a strategy focusing
on the attainment of a long-term sustainable Lower Fox and Bay of Green Bay watershed that is healthy and
economically viable for agriculture, industry, tourism and residents in Brown County while looking for a long
term solution that mitigates compliance impacts and costs. A successful outcome will be for a partnership
among industry, agriculture, municipalities and various units of government to find more cost effective ways of
developing solutions to reach the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mandated Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). TMDL defines the maximum level of phosphorus and suspended solid discharges that will still
allow the Lower Fox River to meet water quality standards.
Background
The Fox River is the largest river in northeastern Wisconsin and its basin drains over 2,700 square miles of eastcentral and northeastern Wisconsin. In Brown County, it extends 19 miles from the Village of Wrightstown to
its downstream end at the Bay of Green Bay and drains almost half of Brown County. One third of all the
nutrients presently entering Lake Michigan come from the Fox River (J. Val Klump 2012). The Lower Fox
originates at the north end of LakeWinnebago.
The Lower Fox River and Bay of Green Bay have struggled with water quality impairments due to various and
complex factors, including point and nonpoint sources of pollution. This has caused the lower Fox River to be
identified as an Impaired Water by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Storm water and
agricultural runoff (nonpoint source pollution) continue to be the greatest water quality threats.
Source: 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 manual, page 31.
1
View of Green Bay April 15, 2011
Photo credit: Steve Seilo (www.photodynamix.com)
The drainage basin for the Lower Fox River and Bay of Green Bay includes the Lower Fox River Basin (LFR
Basin), the Upper Fox River Basin and Wolf River Basin. The LFR Basin begins at the outlet of Lake
Winnebago. Both the LFR Basin and outlet at Lake Winnebago discharge Phosphorous to the Lower Fox River
and Bay of Green Bay. Based on the “Total Maximum Daily Load Watershed Management Plan for Total
Phosphorous and Total Suspended Solids in the Lower Fox River Basin and Lower Green Bay” from the
WDNR, the annual Total Phosphorous (TP) loading from the Lower Fox River Basin is 549,703 lbs/year and
from Lake Winnebago is 716,954 lbs/year. The focus of the WDNR Plan and this paper is addressing the
549,703lbs/year from the LFR Basin. However, even with reduction in the Phosphorous from the LFR Basin,
there is still a significant amount of Phosphorous entering the basin from upstream sources. In fact, the WDNR
plan states on page 31, “however, contributions from Lake Winnebago and the Upper Fox and Wolf Basins
must also be reduced if the goals established in the TMDL are to be met.”
The sources of Phosphorous from the Lower Fox River Basin have been identified in the TMDL in the
following graphs.
2
Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop
lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality
standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority
rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load and
Watershed Management Plan for Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids in the LFR Basin and Lower
Green Bay (TMDL) was approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.
Based on analysis completed in the LFR Basin, a high percentage of the TP loads are being discharged to the
waterways over a very small number of days during the year. The graph below identifies the high loads of TP
and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loads from the Plum Creek sub-basin.
Source: Phosphorus and Sediment Runoff Loss: Management Challenges and Implications in a Northeast Wisconsin Agricultural
Watershed. Marty Jacobson: Environmental Science and Policy Graduate Program. Kevin Fermanich, Paul Baumgart: Natural &
Applied Sciences. University of Wisconsin Green Bay, July 23, 2012.
3
Committee Members
The phosphorus committee began meeting bi-weekly in April 2012 and continued to do so until the culmination
of this white paper. The committee was represented by a broad cross-section of individuals representing
industry, agriculture, public/private entities, and municipalities and included:
Lisa Bauer Lotto, Green Bay Packaging
Jon Bechle, Brown County Land and Water Conservation
Eric Rakers, City of De Pere
Bill Hafs, Brown County Land Conservation (now represents NEW Water/GBMSD)
Lisa Harmann, Advance
Lee Hoffman, FEECO International
Jim Jolly, Brown County Land Conservation
John Katers, UW-Green Bay
John Kennedy, Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage District (NEW Water)
Judy Knudsen, Brown County UW-Extension
Mike Mlezvia, AgVentures, LLC
Fred Monique, Advance
Jim Ostrom, Milk Source, LLC
Patrick Pelky, Oneida Tribe of Indians
Jim Resick, Brown County UW-Extension
Jessica Schultz, Northeast Wisconsin Stormwater Consortium
Tom Sigmund, Green Bay Metropolitan Sewage District (NEW Water)
Troy Streckenbach, Brown County Executive
Vision for this Effort
Attain a long-term sustainable Lower Fox and Bay of Green Bay watershed that is healthy and economically
viable for agriculture, industry, tourism and residents of Brown County.
Economic Impact
NEW Water, the new brand of the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District, has provided water quality
monitoring data since 1986 that was incorporated into the TMDL and Watershed Management Plan for TP and
TSS in the LFR Basin and Lower Green Bay.
Figure 8 from TMDL pg 14, Annual summer (May through October) median total phosphorus concentrations from 1993 -2008 for Lower Fox River
Station 16. The State standard is 0.1. “N” indicates the number of samples taken.
4
The TMDL recommends that all point sources within the LFR basin reduce their discharge of phosphorus to 0.2
mg/L. For NEW Water this translates to a cost of approximately $223 million dollars (2013 dollars). This
expense would address less than three percent of the phosphorus delivered to Lower Green Bay. Building
filtration systems for wastewater treatment plants would significantly increase rates with little associated
improvement in water quality to the LFR or Green Bay. The economic impact will affect all businesses,
residents, industry and agriculture. We will also see municipal stormwater costs increase as well. Many of the
municipalities in the Green Bay metropolitan area are regulated by the WDNR as MS4 communities with a
WPDES permit. MS4 communities currently spend hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars annually to
construct and maintain storm water facilities, such as ponds, drainage swales, and storm sewers, sweep streets,
and collect leaves to address the existing requirements of the storm water WPDES permits. Industry will be
impacted on three sides: increased costs for public owned waste water treatment (i.e. NEW Water) services,
individual WPDES discharge permits for industrial point source permits, and stormwater fees from
municipalities. Some industrial point sources may determine investing in on-site capital for treatment to be the
most economical option and forego adaptive management or trading options.
An integrated cooperative approach involving the entire community – “Adaptive Management” - could be a
cost-effective approach that addresses all sources of phosphorus.
Political Context for TMDL Implementation – Non-Point and Point Sources (agriculture, municipalities,
industrial and the environment)
Source Categories of Pollutants:
Pollutant discharges to receiving waters are categorized by their original sources, of which there are two:
Non-Point Source - "A contributory factor to water pollution that cannot be traced to a specific spot; for
example, pollution that results from water runoff from urban areas, construction sites, agricultural and
silvicultural operations, and so forth." - National Water Quality Monitoring Council, 2007
Point Source - Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation,
or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include
agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture. - The Clean Water Act section
502(14).
1. Agriculture (non-point):
Both agriculture and natural resources are vitally important to Brown County. Even with changes, Brown
County, like many other counties, finds itself facing growing concerns in protecting the areas water resources.
Managing the nutrients generated from livestock and crop operations to prevent runoff and pollution of water
bodies is a significant challenge. While there is a myriad of contributors to this challenge, (meaning there is no
single source or solution), nonpoint source pollution is in general, the major component, of concern. (see Fig.
19) In addition to being part of the concern, agriculture can be a key player in addressing water quality solutions
in the region.
Desiring a balanced approach, the committee has attempted to identify the accomplishments of agriculture in
reducing phosphorus and soil erosion, areas for further advancements, and strategies to assist in reaching water
quality standards.
Recent accomplishments:
•
•
•
72% of Brown County cropland (110,000ac.) is currently included in NRCS 590 nutrient management plans submitted to
Brown County Land & Water Conservation.
Brown County mean soil test phosphorus levels for farms have fallen by 10% since 1995.
Average dietary phosphorus input for Brown Co. dairy herds has fallen by 28% since 1995.
5
•
•
•
•
University of Wisconsin’s adjusted soil fertility recommendations (1994) have reduced the build-up levels for phosphorus
and potassium.
With involvement from numerous stakeholders, Wisconsin has in place comprehensive standards for improving water
quality. Standards are “scaled” for the size of operation; Wisconsin Administrative rule NR 243 covers animal feeding
operations > than 1,000 animal units. Application of Wisconsin Administrative rule NR 151 is for those operations < less
than 1,000 animal units.
Agriculture represents a contribution of $5.7 billion to Brown County’s economy. This includes the direct effect of sales
and jobs in the agriculture sector, plus secondary and induced effects of spending in other sectors.
Producers recognize the importance of good soil health to the region’s economic and environmental success.
Areas in need of advancement:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve soil health. Since 1974 mean soil organic matter has declined by 14%.
Reduce soil erosion which will ultimately reduce phosphorus in our water resources.
Snap Plus nutrient planning tool incorrectly assumes sediment delivery features (areas of concentrated flow and slopes >
9%) are being addressed by conservation practices designed to reduce soil loss.
Adaptation of land management practices designed to address changes in crop rotation, crop selection and field
management.
Improved land use planning. While Brown County livestock numbers have remained fairly consistent over the last 20
years, harvestable cropland has declined by approximately 15%.
Recent run – ups in land prices and commodities has created “fence row - to - fence row” farming.
Political will to oversee and implement Ag performance standards needs to be consistent with those oversight programs for
municipalities, industry and MS4’s.
Wisconsin’s insistence that land owner(s) cannot be required to install conservation practices WITHOUT being offered
cost-share must be revisited.
Strategies to attain the goals:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More emphasis on developing the sales staff needed to market and install conservation BMP’s while reducing the amount
of dollars spent on land owner payments. It is time to re-establish the inherent value of soil and water conservation.
Need to develop better strategies demonstrating economic benefits of reducing soil erosion and improving water quality,
including return on investment of public dollars spent.
Effective Adaptive Management / Phosphorus trading program that meets the needs of agriculture AND protects discharge
permits of municipalities, industries and MS4’s.
Move towards the adaptation of new products / technologies / practices for managing nutrient laden waste streams, soil
sediment and cropland / tile line runoff.
Continue development of waste transformation facilities that allow recovery of energy and reuse of phosphorus and organic
matter.
Create a Brown County Ag Conservation Stakeholders Team. This group will consist of people with diverse backgrounds
with the task of creating a clear, concise, consistent message and “spreading the word” about phosphorus reduction,
improved soil quality and reducing soil erosion.
Build trust relationships between ag producers and other private and public stakeholder groups. When working with Ag
producers it is imperative that strong working relationships are developed. Producers want partners to show an interest in
their operation and themselves. This will take time, patience, money and understanding on behalf of all involved in
addressing this issue.
Move towards farmers developing and implementing Approved Conservation Plans (according to standards) of which
nutrient management is a major component.
2. Municipalities (point sources):
The state of Wisconsin issues Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permits. WPDES
permits consist of four categories, three of which pertain to municipalities:
1. Individual WPDES permits are issued to municipal and industrial facilities discharging to surface water
and/or groundwater.
2. WPDES general permits issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for specific
categories of industrial, municipal and other wastewater discharges.
6
3. WPDES Storm water permits are issued to municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) communities
located in an urbanized area as defined by the 2010 Census.
The TMDL requirements have been allocated to the various groups which will then be enforced through the
WPDES permitting process. Many of the municipalities in the Green Bay metropolitan area are regulated by the
WDNR as MS4 communities with a WPDES permit. MS4 communities currently spend hundreds of thousands
to over a million dollars annually to construct and maintain storm water facilities, such as ponds, drainage
swales, and storm sewers, sweep streets, and collect leaves to address the existing requirements of the storm
water WPDES permits. Many communities in Brown County will be impacted from the TMDL process through
both the individual WPDES permit and the storm water WPDES permit.
Point Source Individual WPDES Permit Issues
WPDES individual permit holders face significant cost impacts to reduce TP. These costs will be passed on to
the users of the wastewater treatment facility through increased wastewater rates. In the Green Bay
metropolitan area, the municipalities discharge wastewater to the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
(GBMSD). The costs for addressing TP will be directly passed on to the municipalities, residents, businesses
and larger industrial users.
Storm Water MS4 WPDES Permit Issues
Most of the communities in Green Bay metropolitan are considered MS4 communities. These communities
have WPDES permits for storm water discharges. During the next issuance of these permits from the WDNR, it
is anticipated that the WDNR will begin to implement the TMDLs which will require significant reductions of
TP and TSS from the municipalities. The degree to which a community is required to reduce TP and TSS is
dependent on the location of the community within the drainage basins. Communities within the Lower Fox
River sub- basin will need to reduce TSS by 65.2% and TP by 30% from storm water that drains directly to the
Lower Fox River. As stated previously, communities in Brown County impacted by this include parts of
Allouez, Ashwaubenon, De Pere, Howard, Lawrence, and Ledgeview. The other drainage areas for
communities with MS4 permits will need to reduce TSS by 40% and TP by 30%.
The majority of the communities with drainage basins in the Lower Fox River are urbanized, with very little
area to construct storm water treatment facilities. Currently, the only practice in place to get 80% reduction in
TSS is storm water ponds. In order for municipalities to meet the 65.2% reduction in TSS required for the
Lower Fox River sub-basin, communities will need to construct ponds in the locations of larger sub-drainage
areas and treat to 80% reduction in TSS. Municipalities will then average the 80% reduction in TSS with
minimal removal rates in small sub-drainage areas to obtain the overall average of 65.2% reduction in TSS.
Pond construction will require the demolition of existing buildings. There are no other cost effective compact
technologies available to treat storm water that are currently approved by the WDNR. For example, a city the
size of De Pere (24,000), it will cost over $40,000,000 to implement a plan of 65.2% TSS in an urbanized area
with land acquisition costs.
Opportunities
From a municipal perspective, there are several opportunities on mitigating the financial impacts of the TMDL.
These opportunities are broken down to be within the municipal boundary and outside the boundary.
There are several opportunities to mitigate costs for municipalities from an implementation and treatment
options standpoint.
Strategies within the Municipal Boundary:
•
Implementation Schedule for the Storm Water WPDES Permit: When the WDNR requires Plan implementation by
municipalities through the storm water WPDES permit; the schedule should not have a set date or have a very long horizon.
Municipalities should be required to show annual progress toward the TMDL goals. This will allow municipalities to budget
for the impacts. Additionally, technology for storm water management is continually changing. A longer extension will
7
•
•
allow for more cost effective means to treat storm water and meet the goals of the Plan as new technology and techniques are
developed. Currently, the only practice in place to get 80% reduction in TSS is storm water ponds. As stated previously, for
urbanized areas requiring 65.2% TSS removal, communities will need to purchase developed property to construct storm
water ponds. There are no other cost effective compact technologies available to treat storm water to this level at this time.
TSS Reduction Credit: Municipalities should be allowed to increase the amount of TSS removal beyond the required amount
in one sub-basin and apply it to a different sub-basin. For instance, if a municipality that is required to reduce TSS by 40%
reduces the amount of TSS in the Ashwaubenon Creek sub-basin by more than 40%, the municipality should be able to
allocate the additional percentage reduction in TSS to the Fox River sub-basin, since the Ashwaubenon Creek also drains to
the Lower Fox River. This ratio should be one to one if within the municipal boundary.
Land Conversion: Specifically for municipalities in the Lower Fox River sub-basin, credit should be given to the percentage
reduction in TSS as land is converted from agricultural use to urban use. As stated previously, municipalities in the sub-basin
are required to reduce TSS by 65.2%. For new development, the required percent reduction in TSS is actually 80%. The
additional treatment should be used to offset a reduced amount of treatment in areas that are already developed. This would
help the municipalities by not having to retrofit storm water ponds in completely urbanized areas.
Strategies Outside of the Municipal Boundary:
Two of the more viable options to mitigate financial impacts to municipalities from outside the municipal
boundary include adaptive management and water quality trading. These practices could be used to address
both the individual and storm water WPDES permit holders. The practices are defined as follows:
•
•
Adaptive Management: A tool that allows a point source discharger to elect to create and implement a watershed based plan
to meet the impaired waterbody’s water quality criteria. This would likely mean installing Best Management Practices
(BMPs) within their own boundaries and partnering with stakeholders outside of their boundaries to install BMPs (most
likely in agriculture.) In order for a permitted entity to meet permit requirements using Adaptive Management the waterbody
under the TMDL must reach water quality criteria. If water quality criteria is not met, the permit holder must continue to
work to implement BMPs in the watershed until it is met (if time allows) or opt to meet permit requirement via trading or
working within their boundaries. Adaptive Management is not an option to MS4 permit holders unless partnering with a
Wastewater permit holder.
Water Quality Trading: A tool that allows all permit holders to purchase credits (good toward meeting their permit
requirements) for pounds of phosphorus removed by a BMP of another stakeholder using trading ratios set by the WDNR.
With this option, the permit holder continues to implement BMPs within their own boundaries or work with stakeholders
outside their boundaries until permit requirements are met.
There are several concerns/comments regarding these practices as relates to MS4 communities.
•
•
•
•
•
Adaptive Management: Based on current guidelines, MS4s will not be permitted to utilize adaptive management in a
watershed unless partnering with an individual permit holder, such as a wastewater treatment plant. MS4s should be
permitted to utilize adaptive management as a tool to reach TMDL requirements.
Adaptive Management: One of the challenging issues with adaptive management for a municipality is to determine the costs
associated with the development. The WDNR expectations on monitoring, sampling, and required maintenance need to be
provided.
Adaptive Management and Water Quality Trading: Ownership and responsibility for the facility will need to be determined.
With that, if an external source causes failure to the adaptive management area or negatively impacts an area of water quality
trading, who will be responsible.
Water Quality Trading: To date, the WDNR has not defined the ratio that may be required for water quality trading. The
greater the ratio required the less appealing water quality trading will be to a municipality. The ratio for water quality trading
should be one to one if upstream of the storm water discharge and within the same drainage basin.
Water Quality Trading: If a municipality purchases property for buffer strips or other natural use, can the land be dedicated
to another public entity such as the WDNR? This option would make water quality trading a much more appealing option to
municipalities.
Additional Strategies
There are opportunities for Brown County to aide municipalities in minimizing costs associated with TMDLs.
•
•
•
The WDNR is working on the implementation plan for TMDLs related to storm water WPDES permit holders. Facilitate
discussions with the WDNR to implement the recommendations for “Strategies within the Municipal Boundary”.
Address comments and concerns with the WDNR related to “Strategies outside the Municipal Boundary”.
Facilitate discussion between the various stakeholders to identify areas that could provide for adaptive management and
water quality trading practices. Work to extend this discussion to adjacent counties that are also within the Lower Fox River
drainage basin.
8
•
•
One of the challenges for a municipality will be to justify the use of taxpayer dollars on improvements outside of the
community for adaptive management and water quality trading. Facilitate discussion with communities on the potential cost
savings for that community by viewing drainage basins on a watershed basis versus by municipal boundaries.
Work with organizations such as the Northeast Wisconsin Storm Water Consortium (NEWSC) to share the information as it
pertains to storm water treatment options and technology. NEWSC is made up of the majority of the MS4 communities in
the Green Bay area. In order to minimize costs to municipalities, it is important to share information and provide
municipalities with as many tools as possible to meet the TMDL requirements. Facilitating discussion with NEWSC will aid
in sharing information.
3. Industrial (point sources):
WPDES Industrial discharge permits are issued to industrial sources that directly discharge to the Fox River. This may be
water withdrawn from the river and returned or waters added to the river, attributed to onsite manufacturing use. The
TMDL for phosphorus does not allow dischargers to deduct the river water background concentration. Being the river is
impaired for phosphorus, the river water intake concentration is already above the allowed discharge limit. To discharge
the water back into the Fox River, the industrial source has to remove phosphorus, even if the permit holder does not add
any phosphorus.
Capital and treatment costs associated with highly restrictive limits, lower than background, may not be able to be passed
onto product costs and still retain competitive costs compared to industries outside of LFR who do not have to expend
capital or costs. Some large industrial businesses have stakeholders from outside the region, which may influence
diversion of capital investment in LFR region to other less impacted cost areas also. Many industrial sites have limited
land and are surrounded by other existing development, limiting the area available to install retention
stormwater basins or traditional storm water best management practices (i.e grassy swales, berms and riparian
sediment collection areas).
The WPDES point source permits allow participation in adaptive management and water quality trading; however,
compliance is dependent on outside sources but violations and fines associated with compliance remain with the WPDES
point source permit holder. Point sources are regulated by complex and comprehensive permitting, whereas, non-point
sources are not always regulated with similar robust enforcement for compliance or monetary fines. Pressuring point
sources by regulation, to pressure non-point sources to reduce through adaptive management or trading, may be
challenging for point sources to maintain regulatory permit compliance demonstration without significant risk.
4. Environmental
The water resources of Brown County are impaired due to phosphorus loading from urban sectors and soil
erosion from agriculture. Phosphorus and sediment, from various sources but mainly from agriculture, are
considered the leading non-point stressors leading to degradation of our area waters. Phosphorous loading
causes increases in undesirable aquatic plants, harmful algae blooms, reduced dissolved oxygen levels,
diminished recreational use, reduction in our property values, pet illness, and impacts to public health. In
Wisconsin, over 100 people have reported health complaints in the last few years due to algae blooms.
Phosphorous loading disrupts the balance of aquatic life- reducing the health and numbers of fish and other
aquatic organisms in a water body. One-quarter of Wisconsin's waters are impaired due to phosphorus loading.
Wisconsin has taken on the responsibility to reduce phosphorus levels in our water resources. This is important
for human health and the wildlife that these resources support.
Wisconsin made updates to their Chapters NR 102 and NR 217 of the Administrative Code. Levels were set as
high as could be tolerated by lakes, rivers, and the Great Lakes- and still support the fish and aquatic life. NR
217 establishes limits on the amount of phosphorus permitted to point-source facilities. Pollutant trading and
adaptive management, which will allow focusing efforts on the most effective reduction measures, will be
allowed as part of the solution in lieu of reducing phosphorus at point-source wastewater treatment facilities and
other industrial and municipal dischargers.
9
Due to the economic downturn, municipalities requested more time to meet the 40 percent reduction in
particulate (TSS) pollutants in their stormwater by the 2013 deadline. This rule change has granted some of
those municipalities more time to address their non-point pollution.
Rule changes were made to address some non-point run-off for farmers under the Natural Resources Chapter
151 to address phosphorus coming off agriculture fields. It gives the State and Counties some tools including
standards, prohibitions and some grant funding opportunities to help the farms with excess phosphorus leaving
their lands.
Reducing the amount of phosphorous entering water resources will improve our water quality and quality of
life. According to economic research, improved water quality translates into many benefits, such as; water
related recreational use and surrounding property values. Protecting the Bay and rivers with good water quality
from phosphorus pollution will lead to a large number of economic benefits.
With the abundant water resources we have in Brown County, these updated standards, along with other
watershed protection and enhancement measures, will continue to make this a very special place to work, live
and play. Protecting our natural resources is rooted in our traditions and we are all responsible to collectively
find solutions for making it better. The land, water, air, plants, and animal life are for the shared benefit of all
people including the generations to come; therefore our decisions should be very thoughtful and sustainable.
Process Undertaken by the Committee
The Phosphorus Committee began by identifying major issues related to the topic of focus for the committee.
Thirty-one issues were identified. Committee members ranked the issues and nine issues rose to the top. These
include:
Ensuring “win – win” solutions for all stakeholders and the community: “Win-win” solutions are needed to
meet the goals of phosphorus and sediment reductions needed to restore water quality in the local streams and
Lower Fox River and Lower Green Bay.
Cost feasibility: Costs to reduce phosphorus from capital improvement projects will be extremely expensive
and reduce a small portion of phosphorus. These costs could negatively impact economy of Green Bay and
Brown County and detract from future businesses expanding or locating in LFR.
Technology assessment: Examination of contributions of phosphorous and TSS loading within all reaches of
the TMDL area from non-point to point sources and aligning the best technology or decision to address them.
This could include both an economic assessment ($/P removed) as well as an environmental assessment (P
capture rate). The lowest cost approach to meet water quality standards must be used.
Cost to private sector: Develop the most cost-effective long-term option, which would ultimately reduce the
overall costs to the private sector.
Regulatory expectations/meeting water quality standards: The estimated cost of hundreds of millions of
dollars to reduce a small percentage of the total phosphorus loading has been described as Brown County’s
“fiscal cliff”. These costs would be paid by the community and its citizens. Applicable Existing Rules and
Regulations for Implementation from EPA, DNR, NRCS, DATCP and County Ordinances and must be
implemented at compliance requirements.
Nutrient Trading and Adaptive Management: Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and
evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on
scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and
practices. Adaptive management has the potential to result in “win – win” solutions to phosphorus reduction.
10
Stakeholder communication: All stakeholders must work together in a seamless manner to move forward and
articulate the overall vision to others in the community. This should also include discussing why this issue is so
important, both for the short-term and long-term, including a sustainability focus.
Land use: Working with agriculture on non-point compliance and new technologies must be a priority.
Keep Measures Sustainable: The community in the future must focus on sustainable growth for business and
long term environmental health. From a social perspective, the implementation of a well-developed plan should
enhance the quality of life in the region by improving water quality.
Recommendations
1. Build broad based coalition of stakeholders.
2. Reduce nonpoint source loads from agricultural operations.
Design, implement, and evaluate pilot/demonstration project.
Prioritize best management practice (BMP) implementation on lands that contribute the most phosphorus to
surface water.
3. Facilitate implementation of adaptive management.
4. Investigate feasibility of private waste transformation facility.
5. Explore creation of a program for implementation of nutrient trading.
6. Create a nutrient/erosion compliance framework that includes a combination of voluntary incentives and
progressive rule enforcement.
7. Work with legislators to expand CAFO designation to cover all but the smallest AFOs. Also seek their help
for further resources for staffing and enforcement. County Land Conservation Departments (LCDs) in the
Lower Fox River TMDL are partners with local farmers and play an integral role in the area’s growing
agricultural industry. Unfortunately, state aid from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection (DATCP) for county LCDs overall has been declining for the past decade, including a reduction
of $1.6 million last year, or roughly 15% of the total state aid for LCDs resulting in continued staff
reductions.
8. Explore cropland preservation initiatives in Brown County to maintain existing agricultural operations.
Conclusion
We acknowledge that this committee is not able solve the complexity of the phosphorus problem, but we have
taken steps to lay out a foundation of what can be done to move forward. We do care about our economy, our
environment and the future viability of our waterways and believe that a successful outcome will be for a
partnership between industry, agriculture, municipalities and various units of government to find more cost
effective ways of developing solutions to reach the EPA’s mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). It
will take continued communication, direction and assurances from the DNR along with other stakeholders. The
goal will be fairness for all when we see and experience the environmental benefits of a healthier Fox River and
Bay of Green Bay.
The issuance of this white paper concludes the purpose of this committee. We recommend that some form of
this committee or a sub-committee, continue in the future to build upon the results of the SWOT analysis.
11
APPENDICES
12
#1 Reduce nonpoint source loads from agricultural operations.
67%___Strongly Agree
33%___ Agree
0%___Disagree
0%___Strongly Disagree
#2 Work with legislators to expand CAFO designation to cover all but the smallest AFOs.
27%___Strongly Agree
55%___Agree
18%___Disagree
0%___Strongly Disagree
#3 Investigate feasibility of private waste transformation facility.
50%___Strongly Agree
34%___Agree
8%___Disagree
8%___Strongly Disagree
#4 Build broad cased coalition of stakeholders.
82%___Strongly Agree
18%___Agree
0%___Disagree
0%___Strongly Disagree
#5 Facilitate implementation of adaptive management.
58%___Strongly Agree
42%___Agree
0%___Disagree
0%___Strongly Disagree
#6 Explore creation of a program for implementation of nutrient trading.
34%___Strongly Agree
50%___Agree
8%___Disagree
7%___Strongly Disagree
#7 Design, implement, and evaluate pilot/demonstration project.
67%___Strongly Agree
17%___Agree
8%___Disagree
8%___Strongly Disagree
13
#8 Prioritize BMP implementation on lands that contribute the most Phosphorus to surface water.
67%___Strongly Agree
25%___Agree
0%___Disagree
8%___Strongly Disagree
#9 Explore cropland preservation initiatives in Brown County to maintain existing agricultural
operations.
17%___Strongly Agree
75%___Agree
0%___Disagree
8%___Strongly Disagree
#10 Create a nutrient/erosion compliance framework that includes a combination of voluntary incentives and
progressive rule enforcement.
33%___Strongly Agree
67%___Agree
0%___Disagree
0%___Strongly Disagree
14
MUNICIPALITIES - APPENDICES
Impacts of the Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements on Municipalities
from a Municipality Perspective
Introduction
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) have been established on several impaired watersheds in Wisconsin by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for contaminants includingTotal Phosphorous (TP)
and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The Lower Fox River (LFR) was the second watershed in the State to have
TMDL’s established by the WDNR. The implementation on TMDL’s could have a significant financial impact
on many different entities in Brown County, including municipalities. Brown County formed the Phosphorous
Committee to address issues and opportunities for these entities. The opportunities include improved dialogue
between the various groups (agriculture, industry, municipalities, and wastewater treatment plants), shared
resources to meet TMDL requirements, and impacting implementation of the TMDL permitting process from
the WDNR.
The TMDL requirements impact municipalities in two different ways. First, there has been much discussion in
relation to the point source reductions required for TP by the TMDL requirements. This requirement directly
impacts industrial and municipal wastewater facilities. The additional costs associated with the TP reductions at
municipal wastewater facilities will be passed to municipalities through increased user fees. The second impact
for many municipalities in Brown County will be the increased costs associated with storm water management.
Both impacts will be discussed.
Background
Following is a summary of how TMDLs came to be, the plan for TMDLs as approved, discussion of a TMDL
and the WPDES Permit holders, and what regulations ultimately encompass municipalities and the other
groups.
Regulatory Plan Approval
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of establishing TMDL’s for impaired waterways
with States throughout the United States. In Wisconsin, EPA is working with the WDNR to develop these
standards for impaired waterways. The second TMDL in the State is the Lower Fox River basin and Green
Bay. WDNR drafted a TMDL plan that was submitted to the EPA and ultimately approved by EPA on May 18,
2012. The WDNR is currently developing an implementation plan for the approved “Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for the Lower Fox River and Lower Green Bay Watershed”.
Plan Discussion
The Plan divides the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Watershed into 15 separate drainage sub-basins. Each
sub-basin is assigned a TMDL to the receiving water body for TP and TSS. The TMDL allocations are divided
between municipalities, agriculture, and wastewater treatment plants. Reductions in TP and TSS are then
15
assigned to each group (within the sub-basin). TMDL reductions are higher for the land use that is over 40% of
the drainage sub-basin. For drainage sub-basins that are primarily agricultural, the majority of impacted
municipalities are required to reduce TSS by 40% and TP by 30%. Two sub-basins, Lower Fox River (Brown
County) and Garners Creek (Outagamie County), consist of over 40% urban and have much higher TSS and TP
removal requirements for the municipalities. The Lower Fox River sub-basin impacts several municipalities in
Brown County including Allouez, Ashwaubenon, De Pere, Howard, Lawrence, and Ledgeview. These
communities are considered to be MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer) communities by the WDNR and are
currently regulated by a storm water WPDES permit. Under the TMDL, municipalities in this sub-basin are
required to reduce TSS by 65% and TP by 30% for the sub-basin. The other sub-basin areas for communities
with MS4 permits will need to reduce TSS by 40% and TP by 30%.
TMDL Definition and Regulatory Permits
Per Federal Standards, a TMDL is defined as the sum of the individual waste load allocations (WLAs) for point
sources and load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources and natural background.
The WDNR utilizes the following formula and associated definition for allocating TMDLs:
TMDL = Wasteload Allocation (WLA) + Load Allocation (LA) + Margin of Safety (MOS).
The WLA is the total allowable pollutant load from point sources (municipal and industrial wastewater
facilities, CAFOs, and MS4s). The LA is the load assigned to nonpoint sources (agricultural runoff,
non–regulated urban areas). The MOS is the margin of safety which accounts for any uncertainty in the
analysis and modeling.
The state of Wisconsin issues Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permits. WPDES
permits consist of four categories as follows:
1. Individual WPDES permits are issued to municipal and industrial facilities discharging to surface water
and/or groundwater.
2. WPDES general permits issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for specific
categories of industrial, municipal and other wastewater discharges.
3. WPDES Storm water permits are issued to municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) communities
located in an urbanized area as defined by the 2010 Census.
4. WPDES Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are issued to Wisconsin animal feeding
operations with 1,000 animal units.
The TMDL requirements have been allocated to the various groups which will then be enforced through the
WPDES permitting process.
Many of the municipalities in the Green Bay metropolitan area are regulated by the WDNR as MS4
communities with a WPDES permit.MS4 communities currently spend hundreds of thousands to over a million
dollars annually to construct and maintain storm water facilities, such as ponds, drainage swales, and storm
sewers, sweep streets, and collect leaves to address the existing requirements of the storm water WPDES
permits.
Issues
16
Many communities in Brown County will be impacted from the TMDL process through both the individual
WPDES permit and the storm water WPDES permit.
Point Source Individual WPDES Permit Issues
WPDES individual permit holders face significant cost impacts to reduce TP. These costs will be passed on to
the users of the wastewater treatment facility through increased wastewater rates. In the Green Bay
metropolitan area, the municipalities discharge wastewater to the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
(GBMSD). The costs for addressing TP will be directly passed on to the municipalities.
Storm Water MS4 WPDES Permit Issues
Most of the communities in Green Bay metropolitan are considered MS4 communities. These communities
have WPDES permits for storm water discharges. During the next issuance of these permits from the WDNR, it
is anticipated that the WDNR will begin to implement the TMDLs which require significant reductions of TP
and TSS from the municipalities. The degree to which a community is required to reduce TP and TSS is
dependent on the location of the community within the drainage basins as discussed previously. Communities
within the Lower Fox River sub- basin will need to reduce TSS by 65.2% and TP by 30% from storm water that
drains directly to the Lower Fox River. As stated previously, communities in Brown County impacted by this
include parts of Allouez, Ashwaubenon, De Pere, Howard, Lawrence, and Ledgeview. The other drainage areas
for communities with MS4 permits will need to reduce TSS by 40% and TP by 30%.
The majority of the communities with drainage basins in the Lower Fox River are urbanized, with very little
area to construct storm water treatment facilities. Currently, the only practice in place to get 80% reduction in
TSS is storm water ponds. In order for municipalities to meet the 65.2% reduction in TSS required for the
Lower Fox River sub-basin, communities will need to construct ponds in the locations of larger sub-drainage
areas and treat to 80% reduction in TSS. Municipalities will then average the 80% reduction in TSS with
minimal removal rates in small sub-drainage areas to obtain the overall average of 65.2% reduction in TSS.
Pond construction will require the demolition of existing buildings. There are no other cost effective compact
technologies available to treat storm water that are currently approved by the WDNR. For example, a city the
size of De Pere (24,000), it will cost over $40,000,000 to implement a plan of 65.2% TSS in an urbanized area
with land acquisition costs.
Opportunities
From a municipal perspective, there are several opportunities on mitigating the financial impacts of the TMDL.
These opportunities are broken down to be within the municipal boundary and outside the boundary.
Strategies within the Municipal Boundary
There are several opportunities to mitigate costs for municipalities from an implementation and treatment
options standpoint.
•
Implementation Schedule for the Storm Water WPDES Permit: When the WDNR requires Plan
implementation by municipalities through the storm water WPDES permit; the schedule should not have
a set date or a very long horizon. Municipalities should be required to show annual progress toward the
TMDL goals. This will allow municipalities to budget for the impacts. Additionally, technology for
storm water management is continually changing. A longer extension will allow for more cost effective
means to treat storm water and meet the goals of the Plan as new technology and techniques are
developed. Currently, the only practice in place to get 80% reduction in TSS is storm water ponds. As
17
•
•
stated previously, for urbanized areas requiring 65.2% TSS removal, communities will need to purchase
developed property to construct storm water ponds. There are no other cost effective compact
technologies available to treat storm water to this level at this time.
TSS Reduction Credit: Municipalities should be allowed to increase the amount of TSS removal beyond
the required amount in one sub-basin and apply it to a different sub-basin. For instance, if
amunicipalitythat is required to reduce TSS by 40% reduces the amount of TSS in the Ashwaubenon
Creek sub-basin by more than 40%, the municipality should be able to allocate the additional percentage
reduction in TSS to the Fox River sub-basin, since the Ashwaubenon Creek also drains to the Lower Fox
River. This ratio should be one to one if within the municipal boundary.
Land Conversion: Specifically for municipalities in the Lower Fox River sub-basin, credit should be
given to the percentage reduction in TSS as land is converted from agricultural use to urban use. As
stated previously, municipalities in the sub-basin are required to reduce TSS by 65.2%. For new
development, the required percent reduction in TSS is actually 80%. The additional treatment should be
used to offset a reduced amount of treatment in areas that are already developed. This would help the
municipalities by not having to retrofit storm water ponds in completely urbanized areas.
Strategies Outside of the Municipal Boundary
Two of the more viable options to mitigate financial impacts to municipalities from outside the municipal
boundary include adaptive management and water quality trading. These practices could be used to address
both the individual and storm water WPDES permit holders. The practices are defined as follows:
•
•
Adaptive Management: A tool that allows a point source discharger to elect to create and implement a
watershed based plan to meet the impaired waterbody’s water quality criteria. This would likely mean
installing Best Management Practices (BMPs) within their own boundaries and partnering with
stakeholders outside of their boundaries to install BMPs (most likely in agriculture.) In order for a
permitted entity to meet permit requirements using Adaptive Management the waterbody under the
TMDL must reach water quality criteria. If water quality criteria is not met, the permit holder must
continue to work to implement BMPs in the watershed until it is met (if time allows) or opt to meet
permit requirement via trading or working within their boundaries. Adaptive Management is not an
option to MS4 permit holders unless partnering with a Wastewater permit holder.
Water Quality Trading: A tool that allows all permit holders to purchase credits (good toward meeting
their permit requirements) for pounds of phosphorus removed by a BMP of another stakeholder using
trading ratios set by the WDNR. With this option, the permit holder continues to implement BMPs
within their own boundaries or work with stakeholders outside their boundaries until permit
requirements are met.
There are several concerns/comments regarding these practices as relates to MS4 communities.
•
•
Adaptive Management: Based on current guidelines, MS4s will not be permitted to utilize adaptive
management in a watershed unless partnering with an individual permit holder, such as a wastewater
treatment plant. MS4s should be permitted to utilize adaptive management as a tool to reach TMDL
requirements.
Adaptive Management: One of the challenging issues with adaptive management for a municipality is
to determine the costs associated with the development. The WDNR expectations on monitoring,
sampling, and required maintenance need to be provided. Adaptive Management and Water Quality
Trading: Ownership and responsibility for the facility will need to be determined. With that, if an
external source causes failure to the adaptive management area or negatively impacts an area of water
quality trading, who will be responsible. Water Quality Trading: To date, the WDNR has not defined
the ratio that may be required for water quality trading. The greater the ratio required the less appealing
18
•
water quality trading will be to a municipality. The ratio for water quality trading should be one to one
if upstream of the storm water discharge and within the same drainage basin.
Water Quality Trading: If a municipality purchases property for buffer strips or other natural use, can
the land be dedicated to another public entity such as the WDNR? This option would make water
quality trading a much more appealing option to municipalities.
Additional Strategies
There are opportunities for Brown County to aide municipalities in minimizing costs associated with TMDLs.
• The WDNR is working on the implementation plan for TMDLs related to storm water WPDES permit
holders. Facilitate discussions with the WDNR to implement the recommendations for “Strategies
within the Municipal Boundary”.
• Address comments and concerns with the WDNR related to “Strategies outside the Municipal
Boundary”.
• Facilitate discussion between the various stakeholders to identify areas that could provide for adaptive
management and water quality trading practices. Work to extend this discussion to adjacent counties
that are also within the Lower Fox River drainage basin.
• One of the challenges for a municipality will be to justify the use of taxpayer dollars on improvements
outside of the community for adaptive management and water quality trading. Facilitate discussion with
communities on the potential cost savings for that community by viewing drainage basins on a
watershed basis versus by municipal boundaries.
• Work with organizations such as the Northeast Wisconsin Storm Water Consortium (NEWSC) to share
the information as it pertains to storm water treatment options and technology. NEWSC is made up of
the majority of the MS4 communities in the Green Bay area. In order to minimize costs to
municipalities, it is important to share information and provide municipalities with as many tools as
possible to meet the TMDL requirements. Facilitating discussion with NEWSC will aid in sharing
information.
19
Vision
Attain a long-term sustainable Lower Fox and Bay of Green Bay watershed that is healthy and economically
viable for agriculture, industry, tourism and residents of Brown County.
Major Issues
1. Ensuring “win-win” for all stakeholders (4.89)
 A) A win-win is where solutions to meet the goals of phosphorus and sediment reductions needed to
restore water quality in the local streams, Lower Fox River and Lower Green Bay are met where all
stakeholder can state: “We win and you win”. It is looking into and implementing alternative solutions
that create value and is measured against sustainability for all parties involved. It may exist in existing
programs balancing with new ones that can most efficiently and effectively assist in achieving water
quality goals and how emerging technologies and/or even include water quality trading can be
effectively utilized.
 B) Helping the environment will not be viewed by the Dairymen as a win for them.
While it will be good for all and for generations to come, there will be some expense involved.
We need to craft a way to make sure all parties buy in appropriately.

C) We must make sure all stakeholders understand that we are not trying point fingers but rather trying
to solve a problem and that it will take cooperation from everyone to accomplish this. Regulations have
changed, rules have changed, businesses have changed, operations have changed, economics have
changed and society has changed, so the stakeholders must continue to change as we move forward with
a “win-win” attitude.

D) Regardless of the options that are implemented to reduce P, there could be some winners and some
losers. However, given the magnitude of the problem, it is more likely that all parties will be losers and
be required to spend more than they do now on this issue. In this case, the best approach is to identify
the most cost-effective approach to meeting the P reduction goals, thereby reducing not only the overall
cost, but the cost for each party. Dividing up the overall costs by party is where the real challenge
would be in terms of creating a win-win, particularly when everyone already feels like a loser because
they are being asked to spend more than they do now.

E) Win – Win scenario is best chance to ensure long term water quality standards are met and sustained.
Focus on reducing phosphorus loading from largest contributing sources first and at highest reduction of
Phosphorus per dollar spent.
20

F) A “win-win” solution is imperative to the success of using trading and/or adaptive management as an
option for meeting TMDL goals. The win for regulated entities will be finding a cost-effective way to
meet requirements. Since regulations are not as heavy, there has to be a “win” for agriculture to want to
commit to the process. Exactly what that means for agriculture is going to determine if it is cost
effective.

G) Win-win being stakeholders get as equal benefit, as feasible, without the compromising of one
stakeholder's interest or balancing financial costs, in comparison to gain in phosphorus
reductions/controls.

H) A win for all parties would be a balance of lowest overall initial capital cost and long-term ongoing
costs. A win would minimize the amount of administrative cost to implement a set of solutions. A win
would ensure long-term regulatory compliance. A win might involve spending money collected from
urban residents and rate payers in parts of the watershed outside the municipal boundaries where it was
collected.
2. Cost feasibility for all stakeholders - public and private (4.56)

A) Cost analysis is to determine whether in fact one can afford a particular option at all, when all the
costs-monetary and other-are correctly computed. But is should be more than that, over benefits should
be included into the analysis, that is measured over longer periods of time. This way it allows for any
entities, both public and private, to determine how and why a project may or may not be environmental,
economically and socially beneficial.

B) See respondent B’s comments to question 1.

C) Realizing that the proposed solutions will ultimately cost all stakeholders, we must ensure that it is
not an economic disadvantage to any stakeholder involved. Whatever solutions we propose, they must
be economically affordable or they will not be sustainable. We must keep in mind that many of the
solutions if not all will affect our food production and ultimately affect the food prices for the consumer.

D) Every stakeholder involved in this issue would likely argue that they cannot incur additional
operational costs and still remain viable. However, as noted above in Ed-3, it is likely that all
stakeholders will bear some additional costs for P reduction. It would be good to understand the business
models of these organizations and also determine if there are other costs/benefits associated with P
reduction efforts (less need for land because of manure separation, better long-term land values because
of reductions in erosion, etc.). It should also be noted that the ability for P trading does provide some
opportunities to do this in a cost-effective manner by targeting the lowest cost P reduction options.
However, there could be some transactional costs associated with this approach, which would reduce the
overall cost feasibility.

E) Costs to reduce Phosphorus from capital improvement projects will be extremely expensive and
reduce a small portion of phosphorus. These costs could negatively impact economy of Green Bay and
BrownCounty. Adaptive management and/ or nutrient trading could reduce those costs significantly.
EPA Economic benefits analysis has evaluated cost effectiveness of Phosphorus reduction:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/economic_benefits_factsheet 2.pdf :
21

F) Cost for all involved is a major factor. From a municipal perspective spending money to do work
outside of municipal boundaries may be a difficult sell. That being said with regulations that mandate
major reductions be met not looking into all options would be an injustice to residents. Science,
background research and support from DNR need to back whatever process municipalities choose to
take to meet TMDL and Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216 requirements.

G) Cost feasibility to rate payers, business costs (capital) and tax payer (tax) is proportional to
contribution of phosphorus and control. That industrial, municipality, urban point dischargers are not
unduly burdened cost when majority of contribution is not controlled or reduced in comparison to
contribution and effort (control/rules/costs). The 20% contribution by urban discharge, and 80% cost, is
not feasible if 80% of phosphorus is being contributed to FoxRiver basin...little cost or no legislative
control/reductions.

H) A set of solutions would be a balance of lowest overall initial capital cost and long term ongoing
costs. It would be lower in cost than brick and mortar technology improvements at the WWTP, but
provide long-term regulatory compliance.
3. Technology assessment (4.56)
 A) Technology assessment means evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of some or all of the
opportunities that are proven with regards to moving the stakeholders from baseline conditions to
meeting or exceeding the new standards within the TMDL.
Examination of contributions of phosphorous and TSS loading within all reaches of the area of concern
from non-point to point sources and aligning the best technology or decision to address them.

B)To me this means we must look at all the different technology solutions other challenged water sheds
are investigating or implementing for their appropriateness here in our water shed.

C) We must look at any and all technology that can address the issues at hand. The proposed
technologies must be scientifically-based and proven to help address the issues. We must also think
outside the box to help develop new technologies that may help address the issues. The technologies
used must make sense in today’s business environment.
D) To the extent possible, real data should be utilized to assess the technologies and best practices that
are identified. This would include both an economic assessment ($/P removed) as well as an
environmental assessment (P capture rate). By doing this, the P removal can be estimated for a range of
technology options and the overall cost for each option can be calculated. As noted under ECON-2, this
would allow for the low cost approach to be identified, but might also allow for an allocation of the
totals costs based on the contribution of each stakeholder group.


E) Need to assess Waste Transformation (GLRI) grant and the removal of Phosphorus from watershed
through market process to areas that are Phosphorus deficient.
EPA economic benefits analysis.
Chesapeake Bay 25 Step – action plan http://www.bayactionplan.com/25-step-

action-plan/
F) Like all other businesses, municipalities adapt their practices to new technologies that best meet their
needs. Stormwater ponds are currently the most cost effective best management practice (BMP) for
municipalities to use to meet NR216 permit and TMDL requirements. To meet TMDL requirements
22
some municipalities will have to look to other technologies and/or trading. Other BMPs in the tool box
include but are not limited to: Street sweeping, rain gardens, bio-filtration, porous pavement, green
rooftops, green parking lots and conservation subdivisions.

G) Assessment of technologies that have already been adapted to reduce/control phosphorus discharge,
including biomass energy to remove from land management. Looking at real data for success and
feasibility for Brown Co.

H) (real data)It is critical to use a science based approach to evaluate opportunities and policy
recommendations. Using qualified data in a peer reviewed assessment approach will provide sound
recommendations for all parties to consider. It is important to avoid consideration of non-scientific
solutions and policies as they have a low likelihood of actually happening.
4. Cost to private sector (4.33)

A) Private Sector has to be part of the solutions for meeting the goals with the phosphorous loading.
Innovation and technologies advancement can be driven by the private sector. Incentives and regulatory
requirements flexibilities can be explored to balance the private sector costs and the communities
meeting water quality goals. Private Sector’s costs will need to be cost effective for them to remain
competitive within their sectors.

D) Under this scenario, both business and agriculture would be included under the definition of private
sector. Given that there is a regulatory requirement driving this process (and perhaps future regulatory
requirements for different industry sectors), the challenge is to come up with the most cost-effective
long-term option, which would ultimately reduce the overall costs to the private sector. However, there
should also be equity in terms of the contribution from the public and private sector (residential
taxpayers should not be subsidizing agriculture/industry and vice versa).

E) Strive to keep the private sector costs including - Agriculture, Homeowner, Industry, Municipal
Storm water, and Waste Water treatment, significantly lower through cooperation and adaptive
management.

G) Costs to industry (business sector) and farmers (private owners) to reduce phosphorus in relationship
to reduction in Fox River/Brown Co. phosphorus totals. Evaluating costs and impact on contribution of
phosphorus; which in ripple effect, may add costs or reduce costs overall for others in watershed.

H) It is important to understand the cost impacts of alternatives to private sector facilities as well as to
residential and agriculture sectors, since most of the area’s employment is provided by the private
sector. The private sectors have influencing factors from outside the region that can be included in their
decisions, in addition to local issues.
5. Regulatory expectations/meeting water quality standards (4.33)

A) It starts with the LFR Basin has 14 waters (including the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Area of
Concern) on the federal “303(d)” or “Impaired Waters List” polluted by excessive phosphorus (TP) and
total suspended solids. Applicable Existing Rules and Regulations for Implementation come from
DNR, NRCS, DATCP and CountyOrdinances. It seems like most of the hard regulations will be on
23
Municipal and Industrial dischargers. But agricultural have DATCP and NRCS referencing each other
tech. notes and standards that make up nutrient management guidelines and management requirements.
With EPA’s approval of the TMDL, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) will
move forward with implementation planning.
 B) There are a number of different Regulatory Bodies with jurisdiction in our watershed. And all not
necessarily on the same page. I think we need to do what we can to bring some alignment. Or to at least
understand their differences.
Summary of the Clean Water Act
33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into
the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the
CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was
significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name
with amendments in 1972.
Under the CWA, EPA has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards
for industry. We have also set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA
made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit
was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.
Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface
discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain
permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.

C) There is not a lot this committee can do about the water quality standards that are set, so we need to
make sure that we do not economically disadvantage one group of stakeholders over another. We must
also seek to find the solutions that will have the largest and quickest impact on meeting water quality
standards.

D) GBMSD must meet the regulations that are established for P, which may include some flexibility for
trading, etc. Therefore, this would seem to be the most important issue in this whole discussion. In
order to be successful, GBMSD will need cooperation from other entities, whether it is support for the
proposed facility upgrades in the community or meeting the P reduction and economic targets that
would be associated with P trading.

E) $220 million dollars to reduce 3% of loading. Need to target dollars and phosphorus reduction efforts
to areas where get the highest amount of P reduced per dollar. Need to help educate/sell rate payers on
spending money outside sewer service area.
Need to gain assurance that adaptive management will be long term acceptance by DNR.
Greater accountability and verification of performance of agricultural best management practices
essential and must be required (from Chesapeake 25 step plan).

F) Permitted entities will find the most cost effective way to meet regulations. Questions surrounding
trading and adaptive management need to be answered before those are viable options.
24

G) What Municipality (POTW) has to do to achieve and meet discharge limits and costs of phosphorus
water quality. What those costs are going to look like over time.

H) GBMSD is committed to 100% regulatory compliance. The new water quality based standards for
phosphorus of 0.1 mg/l (0.2 mg/l through TMDL) will be very difficult to meet and will require
significant capital improvements to GBMSD’s two wastewater treatment facilities.
6. Nutrient Trading and adaptive management (4.22)

A) Water Quality Trading and Adaptive Management could allow point sources leading efforts to
develop and implement more Nutrient Management Plans. DNR staff is evaluating what role nutrient
management plans may play in reducing P loads to P impaired waters. Where you have a TMDL, one
can have innovative ways to meet water quality objectives more quickly and at less overall cost”.
Where the regulated stakeholders can buy back the loads in higher reaches of the watershed where it
would be cheaper to remove the target pollutant – “the biggest bang for the buck scenario”. A balanced
and fair approach to solving water quality challenges.

B)Nutrient trading is a market-based program that provides incentives for entities to create nutrient
reduction credits by going beyond statutory, regulatory or voluntary obligations and goals to remove
nutrients from a watershed. The credits can be traded to help others more cost effectively meet their
obligations or goals. The primary purpose of the Nutrient Credit Trading Program is to provide for more
efficient ways for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders to meet
their effluent limits for nutrients.
According to the Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource
Management (Federal Register 65, no. 202, October 18, 2000, p. 62571), “Adaptive management is a
type of natural resource management inwhich decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-based
process. Adaptivemanagement involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies, and
incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based onscientific findings and the
needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and practices.”
Most descriptions of adaptive management include common characteristics:






An iterative, unified planning process that supports continual improvement.
Emphasis on learning by doing and on experimentation to develop solutions.
Broad stakeholder participation.
Development of cross-sector analysis to effectively allocate resources.
Integrated, comprehensive information management.
Cooperation and transparency in resource planning.

C) This area has the most potential to result in “win-win” solutions to the issues. I view this as not
allowing municipalities and corporations to over spend on solutions that will only slightly address an
issue instead of using that money wisely via adaptive management programs that will spend the money
elsewhere and greatly impact an issue.

D) These options provide the most likely opportunity to achieve a solution that is not only cost effective
but also cost minimizing. The key issues would be related to the required level of cooperation for these
types of projects, the level of trust of the participating stakeholders, the ability to resolve and conflicts
that might arise, and the economic and environmental goals that are established and whether they are
acceptable to the regulatory authority.
25

E) DNR must develop trading ratios and best management practice reduction rates.
Broker must be chosen.
Negotiations must result in long term, verifiable reduction levels.

F) While trading and adaptive management appear to be viable options to finding cost effective ways to
meet TMDL goals and increase local water quality, there are many unanswered questions that need to be
answered before they are really usable options. Some of these include trading ratios, enforcement, cost
of implementing practices and using agriculture land – how much is land worth?

G) Understanding the nutrient trade-offs of reduced phosphorus with other land management nutrients
and potential impacts on watershed and adaptive land management. Adaptive nutrient management and
land management options to reduce soil migration and phosphorus contributions may be beneficial and
cost-effective in some type of Brown Co management program or regulation.

H) Wisconsin DNR provided opportunities for Water Quality Trading and Adaptive Management in
recently approved regulations. While much is unknown about application and implementation of these
options, GBMSD believes they offer promise to reduce cost for regulatory compliance and wishes to
explore these options in more detail.
7. Stakeholder communication (4.11)

A) To put a communication system for all who live, work, visit and play to understand our common
interest in Restoring Our Water Heritage: creating clean, healthy water bodies that are a destination
for residents and visitors because of their abundant fish and wildlife resources and diverse recreational
opportunities. Water bodies whose protection is widely acknowledged as critical to the economic health
of the region. Area residents recognize the value of resources as a foundation to their quality of life.
 B) Stakeholder communication is imperative. In a sense our customers are our stakeholders. One we have
a plan in place we need to use all measures to sell the concepts to our Stakeholders. To me some
examples might be:
 Newsletters
 Email Campaigns
 Blog Postings
 Perhaps even a Website.

C) Education and then more education. We must help educate the stakeholders on the issues and
problems without pointing any fingers. We need to get all the stakeholders to understand the facts and
try to keep the emotion out of it in order to come to a consensus on solutions to the issues.

D) It is critical that all stakeholders work together in a seamless manner to discuss these efforts going
forward and articulate the overall vision to others in the community. This should also include discussing
why this issue is so important, both for the short-term and long-term, including a sustainability focus. It
would also be important for this communication to occur, regardless of political changes, etc.
Communication within the stakeholder will also be important during the implementation phase,
measurement phase, and the sharing of results with the community as a whole.

E) TMDL implementation plan.
26
DNR TMDL implementation coordinator.

F) Communication among stakeholders is a necessity for improving water quality especially for tools
like adaptive management and trading to be successful. It is imperative for all stakeholders to have
ownership in the problem and the solution. From a municipal perspective more communication from
DNR is necessary for elected officials.When talking with the general public it is important to present the
big picture and remain positive. Water quality is intrinsically tied to our economy. While the cost may
be high to improving water quality - business, recreation and the quality of life in Northeast Wisconsin
is tied to those costs. Making smart, cost effective decisions will be best for area residents.
 G) Communication of stakeholders and the impact, costs and feasibility of options to their business and
community. Clear understanding of who the stakeholders are and roadblocks, options, resources,
etc…available

H) Ensure regular, timely and fact-based communication with all stakeholders in the watershed to allow
all parties to have adequate information in order to make informed decisions. Seek out a wide array of
people and groups for stakeholder communication.
8. Land use - decreased cropland acres/increased nutrients on the land (4.00)

A) Approximately 50% of the basin consists of agricultural land (including barnyards), 35% consists of
urban land (including regulated and non-regulated areas, as well as land under construction), and just
under 15% consists of natural areas, including forests and wetlands, which are considered background
sources of phosphorus and sediment in the basin.
Past land-use practices got us where we are today, 14 waters (including the Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Area of Concern) listed on the federal “303(d)” or “Impaired Waters List” polluted by excessive
phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids. New challenges are continue to feed into the over
competing land-use systems. Example: Less land with more cows, more loading, more input like row
crops needed to support the more cows per land unit.
 B) I am having trouble getting my mind around what this means to me. It is obvious decreased cropland
acres means less crops for animal feed and human consumption. It is a fact that Urban Expansion is
claiming cropland, and I don’t think it can be contained. We will have to find other methods of coping.
Increased nutrients on the land – To me this doesn’t need to be a bad thing if done properly. There are
some technologies that can assist in holding fertilizers where they are applied, and improve crop yields.

C) The decreased cropland acres is not just a Brown County issue. Many other areas have urban sprawl
as well and many more urbanites are moving to the country and buying acreage that is removed from
growing crops. In these same areas we have dairy expansion going on and thus we have more nutrients
available and less land available to apply it to.

D) It seems as though decreasing land availability has finally become a reality for the agricultural
industry, which occurs at a point in time when many farms still want to expand their herds. This has the
potential to cause conflict in the rural regions of the county. Therefore, the ability to deal with nutrients
from additional animals may require some new approaches and technologies, which could also be done
in conjunction with the P reduction efforts.

E) Ineffective land use policies have resulted in reductions of cropland and jeopardized agriculture
sustainability in BrownCounty.
27
Significantly incentivize sustainable agriculture (grass raised animals) to reduce corn acreage and
convert to a perennial cover based system of rotational grazing and hay. Highlight the profitability of
rotational grazing, health benefits of grass raised animals and long term cost savings on non- point costs
(i.e. dredging of harbor, sewer and water treatment costs).

F) It is important to understand land use from all perspectives. The amount of nutrients on croplands
means something completely different to me than it does to the farmer. Working with experts from all
stakeholder groups will hopefully allow us to find a solution that works for all.

G) Understanding of current land use (crop rotation, under tilling, acres, nutrient load/acre, etc.) and
management and impact on phosphorus contribution. Options for alternative land management and crop
use that may benefit watershed contributions.

H) Land availability in BrownCounty and the watershed is finite and we must understand the
relationship between land available for development and land available for food production as well as
land held out of any production.
9. Keep Measures Sustainable (4.00)

A) It is a measurement that can stand up over time that looks at economics, environment and social
values that moves both public and private interest forward to meet the required goals. These
measurements should move us to new behaviors.

B) Whatever measures we recommend need to stand on their own merits and can’t be propped up by
temporary Government or other subsidies.
I couldn’t help but think of the Oneida’s Seven Generation philosophy and copied this from one of their
publications. The mission of the Oneida Tribe is to preserve its heritage through the seventh generation
– our belief is what is said and done today will affect the next sevengenerations. With that in mind, our
business philosophy maintains an eye toward the future, focused on sustainable growth for both our
tribal economy and that of the surrounding area.

C) Ultimately economics will drive the sustainability. If the proposed solutions are affordable and help
solve the issues they will be sustainable.

D) As with the traditional definition of sustainability, this process should be evaluated from several
perspectives (economic, environmental, and social). The economics should allow for ongoing
productivity and success of business and agriculture, providing a solid economic base for the region.
However, current environmental regulations must be met and long-term environment health should be
maintained or even improved. From a social perspective, the implementation of a well-developed plan
should enhance the quality of life in the region by improving water quality.

E)Brown County should set no net loss of wetlands or forest cover (see Economic benefits listed in EPA
analysis): http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/economic_benefits_factsheet2.pdf
Brown County set no net loss of cropland to protect Agriculture industry.
Brown County set quota limits on livestock numbers based upon cropland available (to reach
sustainable feed source and land spreading requirement and phosphorus levels).
Analyze Waste Transformation Facility as method to maintain sustainable phosphorus levels.
28
Brown County restrict import of additional chemical phosphorus to balance needs of crops based upon
soil test needs.

G) Adapted measures and practices that can be sustained over time and not short-fused and short-lived.
Measures that are sustainable to environment, community and economics.

H) Evaluation of opportunities should be done using a triple bottom line approach with stakeholder
driven weighting of the triple bottom line elements.
Additional Comments
G) Positive outcomes (put aside differences, embrace long-term impact, community-wide acceptance, rebrand Brown Co.) Positive outcomes that collectively will benefit Brown Co. watershed, economic business,
sustain environmental targets (without compromising other resources) and contribute to long-term planning that
is feasible.
Comments have been written as submitted by respondents.
Phosphorus Committee - SWOT on Key Issue Areas
Ensuring Win-Win for All Stakeholders
Strengths
• Nutrient trading is source of revenue for agriculture conservation practices.
• Reduction of agriculture phosphorus would equal reduction of cost for municipalities.
• Opportunity to solve other related problems i.e. reduce soil erosion, increase water quality.
• Use adaptive management practices to make improvements.
• Increase amount of undeveloped land.
• Opportunity to look at past land- practices and make changes.
• More stakeholders at the table can lead to solutions.
• Look at new options to addressing issue. Rather than discharge to Bay of Green Bay, send water back to
the farmers for irrigation. Opportunity to look at water use when conditions are dry – water shortage
strategies.
Weaknesses
• No trading ratios currently in place. Possible trading ratio is 2:1. Need to have realistic trading ratios.
• Timeline to establish trading ratio continues to be extended.
• Need for all stakeholders to work together.
• Uncertainty with trading as well as new technologies.
Opportunities
• Phosphorus committee could work with DNR on nutrient trading to craft the necessary structure for this
option.
• Increase green infrastructure rain gardens rain barrels, etc. Implement green infrastructure on land that
is developed as well as land that will be developed.
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need quantifiable structure for trading.
Self-policing strategies can be utilized i.e. sediment basins, buffer strips, etc.
Inform community leaders about nutrient trading as an option.
Involve other partners like the Army Corp of Engineers.
Use of technology and practices can truly make a difference in reducing phosphorus and improving
water quality.
Trading can lead to a cooperative approach involving a number of traders. There is a need for
standardization and structure. Liability would need to be built into the price.
If a waste transformation facility is built to address the phosphorus issue, a quantifiable pound of
phosphorus reduction could be measured.
Limit use of marginal land for farming.
If trading is implemented, opportunity to put measures in place to determine phosphorus reduction.
Threats
• Urban sprawl is reducing farm land available.
• Not an equal win-win for all participants
• Urgency in working with the DNR related to setting ratios
• Cost for all players
• Giving credit for trading - how will it be determined
• Adaptive management and credits for trading are not permanent solutions. There are risks and shorter
time frames for use of these strategies.
• Lack of cost share for farmers can lead to doing what they want.
• Hard to regulate point source, issues with exemptions as some may not be held to standards i.e. smaller
farms.
• Pool of funding for agricultural conservation staffing and cost share is inadequate.
• Passive aggressive behavior i.e. rural residents violate rules i.e. septic systems.
• Number of staff needed to regulate agriculture conservation is inadequate.
• Impact on industry – trading has many issues. Contract language. Money involved. Need the “right”
structure in place.
Cost Feasibility for All Stakeholders Public & Private
Strengths
• There are available strategies that can be implemented that are cost effective i.e. buffer strips
• Getting stakeholders together to look at actual costs and scenarios that may make a difference.
• Economics – cost benefit of conservation vs. bricks and mortar is significant. Which will result in the
most cost savings?
Weaknesses
• Money spent to make waste water, industrial, municipal storm-water infrastructure improvements is
very expensive, but water quality will remain poor because agriculture non-point is largest contributor.
• Need to find conservation cost-share funds to compensate agriculture producers.
Opportunities
30
•
Cost of land use decisions that work and are not expensive i.e. change stream from straight to
meandering
• Point sources – push capital costs down the road 10 to 15 years. In meantime utilize other strategies.
• Incentives to farmers who don’t farm marginal land.
• Potential for federal funding (marshal political leaders)
Threats
• Potential costs to industry
• Cost of implementation of technology
• Cost to agriculture due to climate change
• Majority vote will vote for their best interests and others may be left holding the bag- less painful path.
• Cost shift potential i.e. MET builds new facility and passes costs on to property owners
• Small farms may be exempt from costs to address issue.
• Utilize short-term strategies to push costs to later date.
• Money spent on trading/adaptive management now may result in infrastructure costs in the future if
issue is not corrected.
• What is the cost to the river and bay if action is not taken now?
• Disconnect between public and scientists.
• Unfunded mandates from state. If these mandates were funded they may be beneficial.
Regulatory Expectations/Meeting Water Quality Standards
Strengths
• Trading and adaptive management provide new opportunities and potential for improving water quality
• Cost sharing can help farmers with their profit margin
Weaknesses
• Can’t force change to occur – need to create cooperative process
• EPA does not have authority over nonpoint sources
• Large amount of transactional costs
• Equitable distribution of funds
• State does not set higher standards for agriculture
• There is no will to tax farmers or collect money for distribution to farmers to implement practices.
• Insufficient funding
• Limited incentives available
• Need for enforcement but do not have sufficient staff
• Need DNR to determine what are various conservation practices that reduce phosphorus and at what
levels i.e. buffer strips
• Cost of non-point practices will vary across the country – may impact funding given to county. Need
science to determine cost.
• Inspections of Working Lands Initiative (WLI) application resulted in 0/75 in compliance with NR 151
and County Ordinances. What are the next steps? Schedules of compliance are four years.
Opportunities
• Review use of models by other counties in the Midwest
• Public/private investment for projects
31
•
•
Tools available for enforcement
Land Conservation has evaluated conservation Best Management Practices, estimated phosphorus
reductions, and costs to implement based upon 75 farms evaluated in WLI.
Threats
• Desire for cheap food with less regulations
• Regulatory expectations. What if trading and/or use of adaptive management does not reduce
phosphorus then what happens? Can the EPA or DNR “clamp down” if results can’t be shown?
• Updated facilities may not achieve water quality standards. Need more investment as standards are
lowered.
• How much money will be spent on this issue now as well as in the future?
• If water quality does not improve after action is taken – what are the next steps?
• Fear by agriculture of regulation.
• Who is labeled the “bad guy” in this county regarding this issue?
Technology Assessment
Strengths
• Farmers in Brown County lead state in developing nutrient management plans. Soil test maps target
where to put funding – can use water quality monitoring and phosphorus mapping data to determine
baseline.
• Twenty-six years of water quality data available for the Lower Fox and Bay of Green Bay
• TMDL – water quality model is available to do “what if” analysis
• TMDL accuracy is respected – use of best science.
• WLI – Land Conservation does inspections which will address phosphorus.
• UW-Green Bay has faculty and staff to do measurements and conduct research.
• USGS has station on the Fox River by Greenleaf to do monitoring. May be able to monitor other
watersheds.
Weaknesses
• Farmers and stakeholders may not understand TMDL.
• Two standards in place - DNR and TMDL.
• TMDL needs implementation plan and will be revisited in four years.
• Working Lands Initiative shows farmers are not in compliance.
• Not all stakeholders are at the table for TMDL.
• Fox River is complex and variable. Data collected over time can be complex and confusing, thus makes
using data difficult.
• PI Index does not address soil erosion.
Opportunities
• Working Lands Initiative provides opportunity to work with farmers during the next four years.
Monitoring data can be used to determine if initiative works. Put pressure on neighboring farms to
participate – regulatory opportunity. Payment may be available for farmers.
• Reach out to farmers to engage them.
• Majority of farmers understand value of soil. Need to encourage all farmers to participate.
32
•
•
•
•
Great Lakes Restoration Area has available funding.
Educate farmers about TMDL.
Trading and adaptive management practices need to have science foundation.
Create communication plan to explain how action taken or lack of action taken can impact water quality.
Threats
• Farmers may be farming marginal land that may not be best in the long run for improved water quality.
• Enforcement of point sources is in place but limited with agriculture non-point sources.
Cost to Private Sector
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Limited interest by Townships to do land use zoning to protect agricultural land as zoning is done at the
town level not the county level.
Opportunities
• New development can improve water quality if pro-active practices are implemented
Threats
• Price of agricultural land is increasing, milk prices fluctuate, and fuel prices are high. These costs can
impact what farmers can or can’t do. Need compensation to offset costs.
• Land use – available land for agriculture is declining.
• Industry – waste water and storm water costs may impact their bottom line making them less
competitive.
• Wet industries i.e. paper and food processing are getting squeezed as their profit margins are not as high,
they have less ability to absorb costs.
• Realtors have strong lobbying groups. Subdivisions are included in ordinances that focus on water and
soil.
• Is agriculture a part of the private sector? If not, then practices that can be implemented by agriculture
need to be talked about separately.
GBMSD, Industry, Municipalities Regulatory Expectations/Meeting Water Quality
Standards
Strengths
• Credibility of MSD and industry in addressing issues.
• Point sources are required to meet water quality standards.
• Industry implements practices due to structure in place. Industry also self-reports.
Weaknesses
• DNR will want 2:1 trading ratio.
• Many unknowns. Need direction from DNR. What does the future hold five to fifteen years from now?
33
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulatory agencies don’t agree on a water quality standard.
Need for process that farmers understand i.e. frequency of inspections, fines for efforts not undertaken.
Conservation practices installed need to become permanent.
Conservation plans are needed. Lack of personnel to make checks on farms.
Municipalities and towns need to be inspected.
Need a convener of county, state and federal government.
Not all political leaders understand these issues.
Opportunities
• Fiscal analysis on Working Lands Initiative (WLI) has been completed in Brown County. WLI can be
a regulatory requirement.
• Offer farmers cost share to meet WLI.
• Trading is an opportunity to look at lower cost solutions.
• Chesapeake Bay’s 25 step plan is a possible framework. Need for political will. Need to have scientists
at the table.
• Political will is possible at the county, state and federal levels.
• Meeting water quality standards can improve the economy.
• Target solutions that will do the most to reduce phosphorus.
• Mapping the results of soil tests on a regular basis (every four years) is an accurate way to collect and
look at data. If parts/million of phosphorus increase there is a mechanism in place to regulate farmers, if
phosphorus levels are reduced, farmers should be awarded.
• Brown County Board of Supervisors involvement.
Threats
• Capital investment by farmers – WLI. WLI only pays $7.50 per acre. Rent and land prices are high.
• Will DNR accept trading ratio as high as 4:1.
• Economic loss to farmers when buffer strips and water ways are installed.
• Point sources can do their part to reduce phosphorus but it may not be enough.
• Reporting process for farmers is not in place. Easier for CAFOs than for smaller farms.
• Money spent for point sources infrastructure will take money out of the economy.
Nutrient Trading & Adaptive Management
Strengths
• Focus efforts on farms where majority of nutrients come from.
• Use of tools can result in significant improvement to water quality.
• Trading/adaptive management can benefit multiple parties. Could be a possible business opportunity.
• Adaptive management is not bound by trading ratios.
• EPA wants nutrient reduction in the Fox River watershed. May be increased opportunity to apply for
grants to address this issue. In other parts of the United Stated, the federal government is providing
money for projects. As part of process there is a need for cost sharing, monitoring and penalties if
action is not taken.
Weaknesses
• Ownership of water quality needs to be broad based.
34
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enforcement may be weak at the beginning.
Need for regulatory enforcement.
Trading rules are not in place.
Multiple levels of negotiation.
Decentralization of farms. Who do you talk with at the larger farms?
Agriculture (farmers) will not see this as a positive.
Municipalities are trying to figure out the process, potential cost and how to meet the requirements.
They are weighing options. What practices can they implement that will be beneficial? How can
trading fill the gap? Many municipalities are currently working with consulting firms to accomplish
this work. How do players come together? Fully developed communities will be challenged to address
these issues.
Opportunities
• 2:1 trading ration will remove more phosphorus out which is beneficial to the environment.
• Nutrient trading and adaptive management are ways to optimize efforts.
• There are 30 farmers with 500 animal units or more in Brown County. Nutrient trading and adaptive
management may be a harder sale to small farms. Large farms are more regulated and business minded.
• Secondary benefit will be habitat improvement. Open spaces can filter water.
• Economic benefit to the construction of water ways.
• Need for entity to manage trading. Who will serve as broker?
• Enforcement will occur so action will be taken.
• Self-policing and transparency is part of point source for industry. Need to be a good player. Point
sources are currently held at a higher standard
Threats
• May need to implement multiple strategies to become compliance.
• Need all parties to come together in very short time frame.
• Need to change community behavior. For example it is not acceptable to pour items down storm drains.
• May not be successful if trading ratios are set too high.
• Trading ratios for non-point sources are fuzzy. Will be difficult to regulate and enforce.
• Small farm mentality from USDA “I don’t have to do anything unless you pay us.”
• Adaptive management – 10 years to come into compliance with water quality standards. If standards are
not met, money will need to be spent on plant improvements. Point source adaptive management is very
focused when the “clock start ticking.” Non point sources may not feel the same pressure.
• Can’t quantify risk.
• Challenge for industry to clean water before using it and then prior to discharge.
• Need contract with farmers to ensure they understand process, incentives if trading and adaptive
practices are implemented and fines if not.
• Need third party certification. Metrics needed.
Stakeholder Communications
Strengths
35
• When there is an improvement in water quality, success needs to be communicated. What are the
benefits to improved water quality i.e. improved fishing, more tourists, improvement of natural
resources.
• Fox River can be brand for the area.
• A focus on water quality can be a rallying point for the community.
Weaknesses
• Historical there has been poor communication between urban and rural parts of Brown County.
• Get more money for growing crops than for implementing conservation practices.
• Viewed as “un-American” to tell someone what they can or can’t do with the property they own.
• Cost of construction of $220,000,000 facility may be an issue when the cost is bore by the urban
population. This could be a tipping point issue. Also there is the possibility that industry could leave
Brown County.
• What will BMP’s cost? How can this information be communicated?
• Additional staff will be needed as one-on-one meetings with farmers will be most effective.
Opportunities
• Build positive communication between rural and urban parts of county.
• Start creating positive communication about efforts related to improved water quality i.e. fisheries
improving.
• Need well thought out broad effort.
• Need TMLD implementation plan. Coordinate the communication of positive impact. DRN will hire an
employee to oversee this effort.
• Include at field days and related agricultural events when possible information on the benefit of
implementing conservation practices.
• Communication between DNR and municipalities to understand breathe and depth of issues.
• Farmers may need a “sales job” to be convinced to change and implement new practices.
• Best way to deal with farmers is one-on-one.
Threats
•
•
•
•
•
Challenges of communicating these issues relating impact to urban areas an industry.
A lack of a communication plan can lead to failure.
“What is in it for me – I need to make money” perception of farmers.
There is a great divide between large and small farms.
Pushback by farmers as they will not want to make changes. Perception: “If I have to install
conservation practices, then my neighbor has to do it as well.”
Land Use – Decreased Cropland/Increased Nutrients on Land
Strengths
• Many farmers are engaged with cooperatives
• Trend of large farms less likely to sell land for development. In the past owners of small farms viewed
selling land as way to fund retirement.
• Real estate market has slowed.
• Farmers are buying land from developers.
36
•
Focus on application of nutrients – right product, right time, right place.
Weaknesses
• Balancing needs of agriculture, industry and development
• Not everyone understands the value of agriculture
• County has little authority
• Need for nutrients continues
• Slow adaption of technology by farmers
Opportunities
• Available new technologies i.e. cropping, transforming waste products
• Changes to the Farm Bill
• Enterprise zone
Threats
• Decrease in available agriculture land (speed of decrease)
• Too much government – number of units of government, each has own planning process, no agreement
on vision, desire to create “kingdoms”
• Property rights movement is reemerging
• More nutrients making it into bodies of water make it harder on point sources. As more material comes
off agriculture land, pressure will increase.
SWOT Common Themes
•
Collaboration, communication and political effectiveness.
•
Science and measurement
•
Cost benefit analysis for various stakeholders
•
Regulatory disconnect
•
Adaptive management/nutrient trading
•
Funding needs, sources and opportunities
Goals and Action Steps
Short-term (less than one year)
Design a process for on-going communication
• Map key “players” inter-group relationships among these stakeholders.
• Connect with related groups addressing similar issues i.e. EPA, TMDL, Bay Renaissance Group
• Develop an internal and external communication plan and designate a communications coordinator/team to
provide timely updates to stakeholders and the public via use of internet, social and other forms of media.
37
•
•
Connect with DNR TMDL Project Manager following hiring of person for this position.
Develop a communication plan for private and public stakeholders, as well as regularly scheduled stake
holder’s meetings.
•
Send copy of white paper to WDNR, WDATCP, USDA, EPA, farm organizations, GBMSD, Fox Wolf
Watershed Alliance, Northeast Wisconsin Wilderness Alliance, Baird Creek Foundation, and other groups
as determined by Phosphorus Committee.
•
Conduct public hearing at Brown County Land Conservation Committee to present white paper and solicit
comments from general public.
•
Conduct news conference to provide summary of white paper and provide copies of document.
•
Post white paper on Brown County web site.
•
Develop plan to educate stakeholders.
Recommend initiation of an adaptive management pilot program in 2013.
Create pilot committee
• Organize group to explore and discuss options for best management practices, and advises the broader
stakeholder group on the development of targeted or tailored adaptive management strategies for Northeast
Wisconsin. Identify key agriculture, private industry and public players for involvement in pilot program.
• Identify areas that will provide the greatest impact in reducing phosphorus.
• Designate a pilot or demonstration project featuring targeted/tailored strategies to “test the waters” around
adaptive management in Brown County.
• Communicate and partner with other Northeast Wisconsin organizations looking at adaptive management
pilot programs.
•
Communicate and coordinate funding opportunities.
Identify and adapt best management practices for phosphorus management beginning in 2013.
• Search out and evaluate new technologies that can be used as Best Management Practices (BMP’s).
•
Explore use of buffer strips and waterways with farmers.
•
Communicate with DNR and negotiate BMP phosphorus reduction levels for soil protection, sediment
reduction (soil erosion), monitoring, management and contractual agreements required on nutrient
trade/adaptive management.
•
Phosphorus committee encouraged to attend Midwest Manure Summit February 26-27, 2013 to be held
at the Radisson.
•
Develop list of BMP’s and potential phosphorus reduction estimates with review and comment provided
by the DNR.
•
Promote and maintain sustainable productive agriculture (cropland) in Brown County. (Nutrient
management and farmland preservation)
38
•
Fund a Waste Transformation feasibility study that could help remove phosphorus as a limiting factor in
agriculture growth limits.
•
Further evaluate use and cost of Gypsum as a soil amendment that could reduce phosphorus loading.
•
Encourage all farmers will use effective nutrient management practices related to managing effective
cropland.
•
Share nutrient management practices with farms that have not adapted these practices.
•
Increase staffing levels of Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department to work with
farmers ensuring compliance with existing regulations.
Build on-going organizational capacity for phosphorus initiative to be sustainable.
• Have a discussion among original advisory group members on the preferred organizational home of this
initiative, with an eye toward managing ongoing process and keeping records.
• Create a decision-sharing framework that allows timely group decisions at key junctures, while ensuring
stakeholder input and deliberation.
• Find and appoint a Phosphorus Ombudsman, to keep project sustainable and moving forward.
• Develop communication plan for stakeholders, as well as public and private interests.
• Need adequate staff to communicate, install, contract with, and monitor BMP’s.Will need to have
organizational capacity to attain phosphorus reduction levels negotiated with DNR and trading partners.
• Need adequate education and information component to communicate phosphorus initiative – including
adaptive management to farmers, industry, MS-4 and citizens.
• Need combination of cost share incentives and regulations.
Build political effectiveness to work with stakeholders, in order to reduce regulatory disconnect, build
relationships at all levels of government, establish alignment of expectations, and seek flexibility in
implementation.
• Organize a series of educational programs for stakeholders to understand the benefits and constraints of
pollutant trading and adaptive management, and for them to provide ongoing feedback for planning and
implementation.
•
Identify the key political players to help move initiative forward.
•
Identify the political road blocks and develop a plan to overcome them.
•
Utilize DNR TMDL implementation plan in cooperation with TMDL Implementation Coordinator to
work with phosphorus contributors to develop loading allocations that are equitable.
•
Create branding campaign that can be used to communicate efforts to reduce phosphorus highlighting
Brown County’s efforts to turn the County “Green.”
Medium-term (one to three years)
39
Identify and put in place measurements that verify changes that have positive effect, use best science
practices, centralize data, are easily communicated to stakeholders and help DNR evaluate Brown
County’s practices and efforts. (GBMSD) DNR guidance for waste water management SHORT TERM
GOAL & Mid Term Goal
• Identify organization to collect data. Look for other sources of data being collected that focus on best
science practices. Create database to centralize data collection and develop strategy for communicating
impact.
• Determine whether pilot project focuses on Brown County or regional GBMSD needs to satisfy permit
• Determine what specific metrics will be used to collect data and verify progress, and obtain written
approval of these from DNR.
• Develop a schedule of data collection and reporting to stakeholders and DNR.
• Identify experts that can implement and verify measurements.
• Communicate findings and progress to stake holders annually.
• Communicate findings and progress annually to the DNR and EPA.
• Negotiate with DNR on adaptive management format; how much will DNR credit completed
conservation plan on a per acre basis of phosphorus delivery.
Implement a Land and Water Resource Management Plan in concert with phosphorus reduction goals.
• Provide opportunities for phosphorus stakeholders to learn about the adopted Brown County Farmland
Preservation Plan of 2012.
• Evaluate other counties Working Lands Initiative plans.
•
Set exact timeline to implement plan.
•
Working Lands Initiative currently has 60,000 acres enrolled of 160,000 acres total in Brown County.
WLI acres many not increase much more than current levels or could even decrease because of cost of
conservation practices required.
•
Prioritize BMP implementation work efforts on lands with high parts per million phosphorus.
•
Explore preservation initiatives of cropland in Brown County to maintain existing agriculture
operations.
•
Identify and seek potential funding sources to implement Land and Water Resource Management Plan
with focus on private/public partnerships.
•
Communicate/educate local partners i.e. towns, farmers.
•
Communicate with state legislators and governor regarding funding,
•
Explore incentives for encouraging participation in this program.
•
Address challenge of collecting information and possible policy changes to enhance collection of
information. Identify farmers involved in program. Collect information i.e. policies and mandates at the
state level.
40
•
Explore WLI and Brown County’s role with possibility of turning program over to the state. Address
the issue of program participants not having confidence in program, poor public image of this program,
participation issues and need to make program effective. Examine use of program language i.e.
enforcement. Look at structure for reimbursing program participants i.e. at this level get funding, next
level get additional funding. More positive language. Examine cost of investment related to GBMSD
and need for return.
•
Develop a Watershed Conference to include municipal, county, and private sector involvement.
Identify and leverage all possible external funding sources.
• The “technical sub-committee” will research and report to the stakeholders on applicable funding
sources – federal, state, foundations, and corporate – for implementing the phosphorus reduction
program.
• Prioritize best funding sources and put plans together for their use.
Long-term (longer than three years)
Reduce phosphorus by 25,000 pounds per year by 2018 – Relocate from short term goals.
• Identify and target key agricultural players to accomplish goal.
• Identify practices that will accomplish goal.
• Create an evaluation plan for implementation of the overall phosphorus reduction effort.
1. Implement conservation plans on 100,000 acres which will need the following BMP’s per 150 acres
of cropland: it would reduce an estimated 35,000 pounds per year by utilizing grass waterways,
concentrated flow seeded to critical area seeding, and buffer strips.
2. Monitor farm BMP’s twice a year and document of compliance.
All Brown County dairy farms will have an approved nutrient management plan and will be in
compliance by 2017.
• Brown County will implement best management practices as appropriate.
• Set realistic dates for plan implementation and compliance.
• Identify stake holders with highly erodible land.
• Implement conservation plans on the highly erodible lands.
• Currently 115,000 of the 160,000 acres have nutrient management plan. Work with land owners to reach
100 percent.
• Survey each farm in Brown County if they have an approved NMP.
All Brown County cropland will have a conservation plan by 2017 and will be in compliance by 2020 with
highest priority placed on highly erodible land. Move to working Lands initiative
• Brown County will be a model for implementation of best management practice.
Brown County will be a model for implementation of best management practices. (adaptive management
plan)
• Put together a BMP procedure manual for use by others.
• Continually improve on and share BMPs with others.
41