Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin February 21, 2018 DRAFT 02/21/2018 Including Adams, Clark, Columbia, Dane, Jackson, Juneau, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Monroe, Oneida, Portage, Price, Richland, Sauk, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, Waushara, and Wood Counties, Wisconsin Prepared For : Prepared By: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 WI Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster St PO Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Page intentionally left blank Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Contents List of Figures............................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Terms .................................................................................................................... v 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 Federal TMDL Program ............................................................................................................... 1 Wisconsin River TMDL Project ..................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................................ 2 1.4. Narrative Water Quality Criteria .......................................................................................... 16 1.5 Numeric Water Quality Criteria ............................................................................................. 16 1.6 Designated Uses........................................................................................................................ 17 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................ 18 Ecological Landscapes............................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 Western Coulees and Ridges ............................................................................................. 19 2.1.2 Central Sand Plains.............................................................................................................. 19 2.1.3 Central Sand Hills ................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.4 Forest Transition .................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.5 North Central Forest ............................................................................................................ 20 2.1.6 Northern Highlands .............................................................................................................. 20 Hydrology and Water Resources ........................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Wisconsin River Main stem ................................................................................................. 21 2.2.2 Wisconsin River Tributary Streams.................................................................................... 21 2.2.3 Lakes and Reservoirs ........................................................................................................... 21 3 MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 23 Wisconsin River Main Stem and Tributary Monitoring ........................................................ 23 Reservoir Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 23 Additional Phosphorus Evaluation Sites ................................................................................. 24 Sediment Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 24 4 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 30 Spatial Framework .................................................................................................................... 30 Analysis Framework ................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1 Water Quality Model Selection ........................................................................................ 35 4.2.2 Model Simulation Period ..................................................................................................... 39 4.2.3 Calibration Results ................................................................................................................ 41 4.2.4 Existing Conditions Model Results ...................................................................................... 42 Analysis of Baseline Phosphorus and Sediment Loading .................................................... 47 4.3.1 Nonpoint Source Loading ................................................................................................... 47 4.3.2 Point Source Loading ........................................................................................................... 47 Page i Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Seasonality .................................................................................................................................. 60 5 POLLUTANT LOADING CAPACITY ............................................................................. 64 Linking Pollutant Loading to Concentration ........................................................................... 64 Critical Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 66 Rivers and Streams .................................................................................................................... 66 Site-Specific Criteria and Load Capacity Analysis ............................................................. 68 6 POLLUTANT LOAD ALLOCATIONS ............................................................................ 69 TMDL Equation ............................................................................................................................ 69 Load Allocation Approach........................................................................................................ 69 Load Allocations ......................................................................................................................... 72 6.3.1 Background Sources ............................................................................................................. 72 6.3.2 Agricultural Sources ............................................................................................................. 72 6.3.3 Non-permitted Urban Sources ........................................................................................... 72 Wasteload Allocation ............................................................................................................... 73 6.4.1 Permitted Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Discharges ....................................... 73 6.4.2 General Permits .................................................................................................................... 74 6.4.3 Permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems ................................................... 74 6.4.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations...................................................................... 75 Margin of Safety ....................................................................................................................... 75 Reserve Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 75 Seasonal Variation .................................................................................................................... 76 7 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................ 77 Implementation Planning ........................................................................................................... 77 Reasonable Assurances for Point Sources. ............................................................................ 77 Reasonable Assurances for Nonpoint Sources ...................................................................... 77 7.3.1 Statewide Agricultural Performance Standards & Manure Management Prohibitions78 7.3.2 County Agricultural Performance Standards & Manure Management Prohibitions 79 7.3.3 WDNR Cost-Sharing Grant Programs.............................................................................. 79 7.3.4 Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant Program .................................................. 80 7.3.5 Notice of Discharge (NOD) Grants Program .................................................................. 81 7.3.6 Lake Management Planning Grants ................................................................................. 82 7.3.7 Lake and River Protection Grants ..................................................................................... 82 7.3.8 DATCP Soil & Water Resource Management Program ................................................ 84 7.3.9 DATCP Producer Led Watershed Protection Grants Program .................................... 84 7.3.10 Federal Programs .............................................................................................................. 85 7.3.11 Water Quality Trading & Adaptive Management .................................................... 86 7.3.12 Healthy Soil, Healthy Water Partnership ..................................................................... 86 Post-Implementation Monitoring .............................................................................................. 86 Statewide Tracking Database ................................................................................................. 87 Implementation of Current TMDL Allocations and SSC Based Allocations ...................... 87 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................. 88 Wisconsin River Symposium...................................................................................................... 88 Invited Presentations at Stakeholder Sponsored Meeting ................................................. 89 Technical Meetings & Webinars ............................................................................................. 89 Draft TMDL Model Review ....................................................................................................... 90 Page ii Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Other Stakeholder Meetings & Webinars ............................................................................ 91 Wisconsin River TMDL GovDelivery Email Subscription List ............................................... 91 Draft TMDL Allocations and Draft TMDL Review ................................................................. 92 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 93 List of Figures Figure 1. TMDL Project Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project Area Regions....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 3A. Total Phosphorus Impaired waters - Lower WI River Basin ............................................................................... 12 Figure 3B. Total Phosphorus Impaired waters – Central WI River Basin ............................................................................. 13 Figure 3C. Total Phosphorus Impaired waters – Upper WI River Basin .............................................................................. 14 Figure 3D. Total Phosphorus Impaired waters – WI River Headwaters .............................................................................. 15 Figure 5. Agricultural Areas .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 6. Eclolgical landscapes .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7. Wis River Main stem Monitoring: Median TP Concentration ................................................................................. 25 Figure 8. Tributary Monitoring - Median TP concentration .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 9. Reservoir Monitoring – GEOMEAN TP concentration ............................................................................................. 27 Figure 10. Reservoir Monitoring – GEOMEAN Chlorophyll A concentration ...................................................................... 28 Figure 11. Reservoir Monitoring – GEOMEAN Chlorophyll A concentration ...................................................................... 29 Figure 12A. TMDL Subbasins – Lower Basin.............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 12B. TMDL Subbasins – Central Basin ............................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 12C. TMDL Subbasins – Upper Basin ............................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 12D. TMDL Subbasins – Headwaters Basin .................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 13. Location of Permitted MS4s ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 14. Defining land cover and land management in agricultural areas. ................................................................... 37 Figure 15. Plot of mean discharge (2010-13) on the main stem Wisconsin River between Merrill and Prairie du Sac. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 16. Plot of mean annual TP load (2010-13) on the main stem Wisconsin River between Merrill and Prairie du Sac................................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 17. Average Annual Phosphorus Load Delivered by major Tributary Watersheds ............................................. 44 Figure 18. Total Phosphorus (TP) yields per subbasin ............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 19. Sources of Phosphorus Loads in the Wisconsin River Basin ................................................................................. 46 Figure 20A. Location of Wastewater Treatment Facilities – Lower Basin ........................................................................... 49 Figure 20B. Location of Wastewater Treatment Facilities – Central Basin ......................................................................... 50 Figure 20C. Location of Wastewater Treatment Facilities – Upper Basin .......................................................................... 51 Figure 20D. Location of Wastewater Treatment Facilities – Headwaters Basin ............................................................... 52 Figure 21A. Location of Permitted MS4 – Lower Basin........................................................................................................... 54 Figure 21B. Location of Permitted MS4 – Central Basin ....................................................................................................... 55 Figure 21C. Location of Permitted MS4 – Upper Basin......................................................................................................... 56 Figure 22. Boxplots showing the temporal pattern of pollutant yields throughout the year. Each boxplot represents the distribution of average monthly yields across all years in the watershed model simulation period ...................... 60 Figure 23A. Location of CAFOs – Lower Basin ......................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 23B. Location of CAFOs– Central Basin ........................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 23C. Location of CAFOs– Upper Basin.......................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 24. Flow-Weighted Mean (FWM) to Growing Season Median (GSM) Concentration ratios ............................ 65 Figure 25. Diagram of allocation approach when reach baseline load is above reach allowable load (example, not to scale). ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Page iii Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Figure 26. Diagram of allocation approach when reach baseline load is below reach allowable load (example, not to scale). ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 27. Diagram of allocation approach for reach with a reservoir (example, not to scale). .................................. 71 List of Tables Table 1. total phosphorus impaired river and stream segments ............................................................................................. 4 Table 2. sediment/Total suspended solids Impaired River and Stream Segments ........................................................... 10 Table 3. Phosphorus Impaired Lakes addressed by TMDL..................................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Wisconsin Numeric Phosphorus Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. recommended Site-Specific Phosphorus Criteria. ..................................................................................................... 17 Table 6. Criteria for Siting Hydrologic Break Points in the TMDL Project Area. ............................................................... 30 Table 7. Descriptions of models used to determine baseline pollutant loads. ................................................................... 35 Table 8. List of permitted MS4s ................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 9. Average annual (2010-13) discharge, TP load, and estimated TP delivery fractions for main stem Wisconsin River monitoring stations. ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Table 10. General performance ratings for recommended statistics for a monthly time step (from Moriasi et al., 2007). ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 11. Final fit statistics of streamflow, TSS, and TP after bias-correctioN. ................................................................. 43 Table 12. Permitted MS4 area by TMDL subbasin. ................................................................................................................ 57 Table 13. List of CAFOs (updated as of 2/2108)................................................................................................................... 59 Table 14. Wisconsin River tributary monitoring stations used to convert from annual flow-weighted mean (FWM) to growing-season median (GSM) TP concentration (sorted by FWM / GSM ratio). ........................................................... 66 Table 15. Summary of current loading and loading capacity for total phosphorus in Wisconsin River Basin impaired lakes and reservoirs........................................................................................................................................................................ 67 Table 16. Draft TMDL Products Accessible for External Review during TMDL Development .......................................... 90 Table 17. Wisconsin River TMDL GovDelivery List Bulletins ................................................................................................... 91 List of Appendices Appendix A Tributary Information and Charts Appendix B Lakes Requiring Additional Evaluation Appendix C Site-Specific Criteria Analysis Appendix D Watershed Modeling Documentation Appendix E Sediment Monitoring Appendix F Baseline Load Appendix G MS4 Detail Maps Appendix H Total Phosphorus Loading Capacity of Petenwell and Castle Rock Flowages Appendix I BATHTUB and Empirical Lake Models Appendix J Allocations Appendix K Proposed Site-Specific Criteria Allocations Appendix L Watershed Implementation Activities Appendix M CE-QUAL-W2 Reservoir Model Page iv Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin List of Acronyms and Terms 303(d) List List of Impaired Waters AM Wisconsin’s Watershed Adaptive Management Option BMPs Best Management Practices CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program DATCP Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection DO Dissolved Oxygen FAL Fish and Aquatic Life FSA Farm Service Agency LA Load Allocation LAL Limited Aquatic Life LCD Land Conservation Department LFF Limited Forage Fish LWRM Land and Water Resources Management mL milliliters MOS Margin of Safety MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NCCW Non-Contact Cooling Water NOD Notice of Discharge NPS Program Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PI Phosphorus Index POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works RC Reserve Capacity SLAMM Source Loading and Management Model SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool Page v Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TBEL Technology-Based Effluent Limit TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total Phosphorus TRM Targeted Runoff Management TSS Total Suspended Solids USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WisCALM Wisconsin Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation WLA Wasteload Allocation WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit WQT Water Quality Trading WWSF Warm Water Sport Fish WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility Page vi Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 1 INTRODUCTION Federal TMDL Program Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to identify impaired waters within its boundaries; impaired waters are those not meeting water quality standards for any given pollutant applicable to the water’s designated uses. Section 303(d) further requires that states develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for all pollutants violating or causing violation of applicable water quality standards for each impaired water body. A TMDL is the maximum amount of pollutant that a water body is capable of assimilating while continuing to meet the existing water quality standards. In April of 1991, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water’s Assessment and Protection Division published “Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process.” In July 1992, EPA published the final “Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation” (40 CFR Part 130). Together, these documents describe the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the states in meeting the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4. FIGURE 1. TMDL PROJECT AREA Under a TMDL, pollutant allocations are set at the levels necessary to meet the applicable standards for all point and nonpoint sources causing impairment, with consideration given to seasonal variations and margin of safety. TMDLs provide the framework that allows states to establish and implement pollution control and management plans, with the ultimate goal indicated in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA: “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever attainable”. Wisconsin River TMDL Project The Wisconsin River TMDL project area encompasses the Wisconsin River Basin from the Lake Wisconsin dam near Prairie Du Sac, WI to the basin’s headwaters in Vilas, County, WI (Figure 1). The TMDL project area encompasses 9,156 square miles, including all or portions of the following 20 counties: Adams, Clark, Columbia, Dane, Jackson, Juneau, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Monroe, Oneida, Portage, Price, Richland, Sauk, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, Waushara, and Wood. Twenty-four major tributaries, and additional smaller ones, drain into the main stem of the river, as illustrated in Figure 3A-D. The river system includes 25 hydroelectric dams on the main stem of the river and 21 tributary storage reservoirs that regulate flow on the river’s main stem. Summary information by tributary is illustrated in Appendix A. FIGURE 2. PROJECT AREA REGIONS Because of the size of the project area, many of the map figures of the project area included in this report are divided into four regions – the lower, central, upper and headwaters project areas; these figure regions are illustrated in Figure 2. The lower region includes the tributaries that drain to the Wisconsin River below Castle Rock and Petenwell reservoirs, and extends to the outlet of Lake Wisconsin. The Central region spans the area downstream of the Lake Page 1 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin DuBay dam to the area upstream of, and including, Castle Rock Lake. The Upper region spans the area that drains to Lake DuBay up to the point where the Spirit River Reservoir discharges into the river. The Headwaters region includes everything upstream of the Upper region, where the Spirit River Reservoir discharges into the river. Many lakes, rivers, and streams in the Wisconsin River Basin are impaired by excessive phosphorus. These impairments lead to nuisance algae growth, oxygen depletion, water clarity problems and reduced submerged aquatic vegetation in lakes, excessive beds of submerged aquatic vegetation in streams, and degraded habitat. They also adversely affect fish and other aquatic life, recreation, and navigation. This document establishes a framework for addressing these impairments, through the development of TMDLs for total phosphorus (TP). Problem Statement Phosphorus, an essential nutrient for plant growth, is problematic for aquatic ecosystems when present in large amounts because it fertilizes the growth of excessive algae blooms and other plant growth in aquatic systems. Algal blooms, particularly those that form surface scums, are unsightly and can have unpleasant odors, making recreational use of the water body unpleasant, affecting the quality of life of the people who live and work nearby. Algae blooms that include toxic blue-green algae or cyanobacteria can be harmful to fish and pose health risks to humans. When algal blooms die, the decomposition of the organic matter depletes the supply of dissolved oxygen in the water and depending on the severity of a low dissolved oxygen event, fish kills can occur. Overabundant growth of aquatic plants can also lead to many other undesirable consequences. For example, mats of filamentous algae and duckweed can block sunlight from penetrating the water, choking out beneficial submerged aquatic vegetation. Large areas of excessive vegetative growth can inhibit use of the water for fishing, boating, and swimming. All of these environmental impacts have economic impacts to local communities and the state. Water bodies can also be impaired by excess sediment loading. Sediment that is suspended in the water scatters and absorbs sunlight, reducing the amount of light that reaches submerged aquatic vegetation, which reduces its photosynthetic rate and growth. Bottom-rooted aquatic plants (called macrophytes) produce lifegiving oxygen, provide food and habitat for fish and other aquatic life, stabilize bottom sediments, protect shorelines from erosion, and take up nutrients that would otherwise contribute to nuisance algae growth. As photosynthetic rates decrease, less oxygen is released into the water by the plants. If light is completely blocked from bottom dwelling plants, the plants will stop producing oxygen and will die. As the plants are decomposed, bacteria will use up even more oxygen from the water. Reduced water clarity can also have direct impacts on aquatic fauna, including fish, waterfowl, frogs, turtles, and insects. Suspended sediments interfere with the ability of fish and waterfowl to see and catch food and can clog the gills of fish and invertebrates, making it difficult for them to breathe. When sediments settle to the bottom of a river, they can smother the eggs of fish and aquatic insects, as well as suffocate newly hatched insect larvae. Settling sediments can also fill in spaces between rocks, which could have been used by aquatic organisms for homes. Excess sediments can also cause an increase in surface water temperature, because the sediment particles absorb heat from sunlight. This can cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall even farther (warmer waters hold less dissolved oxygen), and further harm aquatic life. In addition to its direct effects, sediment may also carry nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants into water bodies. A large proportion of the phosphorus that moves from land to water is attached to sediment particles. In general, this means that managing sediment sources can help manage phosphorus sources (Sharpley et al., 1990). Page 2 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Through monitoring and assessment, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has identified all or part of 65 streams, covering 109 individual segments/assessment units in the Wisconsin River Basin, as impaired due to phosphorus pollution, and has listed these on the state’s 2016 303(d) Impaired Waters List. The Department has also identified eight lakes in the project area as impaired due to phosphorus that will be addressed by this TMDL. Phosphorus impaired rivers and streams addressed by this TMDL are listed in Table 1. Rivers and streams impaired by sediment and TSS are listed in Table 2. Lakes and reservoirs impaired by phosphorus are listed in Table 3. These impairments are illustrated in Figure 3A-D. This information is also shown by tributary basin in Appendix A. The analysis method employed in this TMDL divided the Wisconsin River Basin into smaller subbasins. Each of these subbasins, approximately the size of a HUC-12 watershed, has an allocated load for phosphorus based on the phosphorus criteria for the waterbodies in that subbasin and to address more stringent downstream water quality criteria. The delineation of these subbasins often directly corresponds with the spatial extent of impaired river and stream segments or the contributory drainage areas of impaired lakes; however, subbasins were also delineated for waterbodies not listed as impaired. Thus, allocations were assigned to subbasins with listed and unlisted waterbodies. The resulting system of subbasin allocations provide protection ensuring that allocated loads meet promulgated water quality criteria for all waterbodies within the subbasin as well as downstream waterbodies. If future monitoring determines that additional river or stream segments within a subbasin are impaired, these impaired segments can be added to Wisconsin’s future 303(d) Impaired Waters Lists under Category 5B: impaired waters with an approved TMDL or restoration plan. There are some lakes in the Wisconsin River Basin that are not explicitly addressed by the TMDL. These lakes are listed as impaired for reasons possibly related to excessive phosphorus, even though phosphorus is not specifically identified as the pollutant causing their impairment. There are also lakes within the project area that are impaired by phosphorus that are not addressed by the TMDL. These lakes are listed and discussed in Appendix B. These lakes and reservoirs will require further evaluation to determine if the allocations listed in Appendix J will be sufficient to achieve water quality standards for the lakes or if more detailed studies, sitespecific restoration plans, adoption of site-specific criteria (SSC), or other measures will be needed to achieve water quality goals. Most of these lakes are located in the head-waters of the Wisconsin River where there are limited agricultural nonpoint sources of phosphorus and very few point sources. While implementation of the phosphorus allocations assigned in the TMDL are likely to result in water quality improvements, additional evaluation of phosphorus sources beyond the scope and scale of this TMDL, such as failing septic systems and stabilization and restoration of shore land buffers, are all potential avenues that will need to be explored in lake specific management plans. This report identifies the TMDLs, load allocations, and recommended management actions that will help restore water quality in the Wisconsin River Basin for phosphorus impaired waterways. Sediment and TSS impaired streams and rivers have not been assigned explicit allocations and are therefore not explicitly addressed in this TMDL. The sediment and TSS impaired segments listed in Table 2 are impaired due to nonpoint sources of sediment and TSS; there are not permitted point sources upstream of or discharging directly to these segments that cause or contribute to the sediment and TSS impairments. It is reasonable to expect that TMDL implementation actions that reduce TP to acceptable levels will also reduce TSS loads. Based on the lack of numeric sediment and TSS criteria for streams and rivers it is recommended that the segments listed in Table 2 rely on a combination of nonpoint phosphorus reductions along with the development of 9-Key Element Plans to reduce nonpoint sediment and TSS loads to an extent sufficient to achieve designated fish and other aquatic life uses. Page 3 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Start Mile End Mile TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed Baraboo River 0 28.16 Sauk, Columbia Default FAL 4, 137, 179, Lower Baraboo Baraboo River 28.16 60.23 100 Default FAL 5, 179, 180, 184, 231 Lower Baraboo Baraboo River 60.23 Impairment Unknown 100 Default FAL 184-187, 227 Lower Baraboo Baraboo River Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 100 Default FAL 187,274 Lower Baraboo 1271100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 100 Default FAL* 27 Lower Baraboo 12978 1271100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 100 Cold 28, 189 Lower Baraboo Juneau, Monroe 13102 1311600 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 51, 52 Lower Lemonweir 11.7 Portage, Wood 12317 139870 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 78 Central Mill 0 4 Juneau, Monroe 18435 1314000 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 53 Lower Lemonweir Big Eau Pleine River 0 16.6 Marathon 12398 1427200 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 WWSF 87, 88 Upper Big Eau Pleine Big Eau Pleine River 16.61 21.84 Marathon 12399 1427200 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 WWSF 327 Upper Big Eau Pleine Big Eau Pleine River 22.34 45.64 Marathon 886772 1427200 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 WWSF 91, 152, 324 Upper Big Eau Pleine Black Creek 0 14.65 Marathon 12474 1458200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 102, 215 Upper Rib Black Creek 14.65 19.64 Marathon 12475 1458200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 104 Upper Rib Brewer Creek 0 6.7 Juneau 18447 1305000 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community, Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 43, 44 Lower Lemonweir Brewer Creek 6.7 8.78 Juneau 13069 1305000 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 44 Lower Lemonweir Cat Creek 0 2 Wood 12232 1370700 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 65 Central Yellow Cazenovia Branch 0 0.66 Richland, Sauk 13010 1283100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 310 Lower Baraboo Cleaver Creek 0 5 Juneau 13031 1292500 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 26 Lower Baraboo Waterbody Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 944741 1271100 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 100 Sauk 944788 1271100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 86.79 Juneau, Sauk 944844 1271100 Total Phosphorus 86.79 101.29 Juneau 944915 1271100 Baraboo River 101.35 106.16 Juneau 13023 Baraboo River 108.6 118.93 Monroe Bear Creek 0 13.95 Bear Creek 0 Beaver Creek 1 Counties Assessment Unit Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 Water Quality Use Restrictions = TP criteria were “overwhelmingly” exceeded (1.5 times the criteria for lakes and 2 times the criteria for rivers/streams); Degraded Biological Community = In addition to TP exceedance biological impairment was shown (poor macroinvertebrate and/or fish Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) scores); Impairment Unknown = TP exceeded criteria but no biological impairment was shown (either no biological data or all IBIs were fair – excellent); Low DO = Low dissolved oxygen 2 Phosphorus criteria (µg/L): The waterbody’s applicable phosphorus criterion under ch. NR 102.06 3 Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use Status: This column indicates the waterbody’s current Fish & Aquatic Life (FAL) Designated Use (DU) subcategory. If the DU has an asterisk behind it, that indicates that the waterbody was classified as Trout Class III before 1980, and may or may not be proposed as Cold in future DU revisions. Acronyms within this column are as follows: FAL=Fish & Aquatic Life; LFF=Limited Forage Fish; LAL=Limited Aquatic Life; WWSF=Warmwater Sport Fish; default FAL = Default Fish & Aquatic Life Page 4 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Start Mile End Mile Copper Creek 0 6 Council Creek 0 Crossman Creek Crossman Creek Waterbody Counties Assessment Unit WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 Degraded Biological Community Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed 75 Default FAL 8 Lower Baraboo Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 55 Lower Lemonweir Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 17 Lower Baraboo 1286700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 19 Lower Baraboo 12226 1367400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 62 Central Yellow Sauk 18439 1295200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 31 Lower Lower WI 15.82 Sauk 13045 1295200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 32 Lower Lower WI 15.82 19.25 Sauk 6897810 1295200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 32 Lower Lower WI Dell Creek 19.25 23.35 Juneau 946824 1295200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 33 Lower Lower WI Dill Creek 0 8 Marathon 12402 1430700 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 93 Upper Big Eau Pleine Dill Creek 8 20 Clark, Marathon 12403 1430700 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 LFF 95 Upper Big Eau Pleine Duck Creek 0 12 Columbia 13523 1266300 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 3 Lower Lower WI E Br Big Eau Pleine River 0 11 Marathon 12411 1432300 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 99 Upper Big Eau Pleine East Br Big Creek 0 7 Juneau, Sauk 13006 1280500 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 15 Lower Baraboo Fenwood Creek 0 1.5 Marathon 12393 1428700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 89, 326 Upper Big Eau Pleine Fenwood Creek 1.5 17 Marathon 12394 1428700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 90 Upper Big Eau Pleine Hamann Creek 0 10 Marathon 18334 1429900 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 92 Upper Big Eau Pleine Hay Creek 0 5.42 Sauk 13001 1279000 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Cold 9 Lower Baraboo 75 Default FAL/LFF for section from Vesper Dam to Dawes Creek. 62, 201 Central Yellow Sauk 12999 1278400 Total Phosphorus 3.58 Monroe 13110 1341600 Total Phosphorus 0 6.43 Juneau, Sauk 13019 1286700 6.42 12.01 Juneau 13020 0 7.75 Wood Dell Creek 1.84 7.56 Dell Creek 7.55 Dell Creek Dawes Creek Hemlock Creek 0 28.1 Hills Creek 0 10 Hulbert Creek 0 1.55 Wood 12224 1366300 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community, Impairment Unknown Juneau, Vernon 18434 1288800 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 21 Lower Baraboo Sauk 13050 1298500 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 243 Lower Lower WI Page 5 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Start Mile End Mile Lemonweir River 0 25.8 Juneau Lemonweir River 25.8 30.64 Lemonweir River 30.64 Little Baraboo River Little Bear Creek Waterbody Counties Assessment Unit Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed Default FAL 36, 244, 245 Lower Lemonweir 100 Default FAL 45 Lower Lemonweir 100 Default FAL 195, 197, 306 Lower Lemonweir 75 Default FAL 14, 301 Lower Baraboo 75 Default FAL 79 Upper Little Eau Pleine 82, 211 Upper Little Eau Pleine WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 13059 1301700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 100 Juneau 13060 1301700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 55.88 Juneau, Monroe 201397 1301700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 0 11.93 Richland, Sauk 13007 1282500 Total Phosphorus 0 1.5 Wood 12359 1416900 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community Degraded Biological Community, Impairment Unknown Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 Wood 12360 1416900 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL with portions listed as LFF and LAL in NR. 104 Marathon, Portage 12354 1412600 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 80, 150 Upper Little Eau Pleine Clark, Marathon 12355 1412600 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 85, 212, 213 Upper Little Eau Pleine 10.39 Wood 12225 1367100 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 62 Central Yellow 0 4.62 Juneau 18456 1306100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 47 Lower Lemonweir Little Lemonweir River 4.62 12.36 Juneau 948033 1306100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 47, 48, 196 Lower Lemonweir Little Lemonweir River 12.36 22.86 Juneau, Monroe 948058 1306100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 49 Lower Lemonweir Little Lemonweir River 22.86 24.81 Monroe 948085 1306100 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 50 Lower Lemonweir Lyndon Creek 0 6 Juneau 13054 1300700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL* 34, 192 Lower Lower WI Lyndon Creek 6 8.73 Juneau 13055 1300700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL* 35 Lower Lower WI Mill Creek 0 16.01 Portage 12318 1398600 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 Default FAL 78, 146 Central Mill Mill Creek 16.01 32.82 Wood, Portage 12319 1398600 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 Default FAL 207, 332 Central Mill Mill Creek 5.81 8.24 Monroe 18452 1326700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 58, 305 Lower Lemonweir Narrows Creek 0 23 Sauk 12996 1276400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 7, 181, 183 Lower Baraboo North Br Duck Creek 0 20.6 Columbia 13526 1267500 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 2, 177 Lower Lower WI Onemile Creek 0 0.69 Juneau 18445 1303400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 38 Lower Lemonweir Little Bear Creek 1.5 8 Little Eau Pleine River 0 28.6 Little Eau Pleine River 28.6 57 Little Hemlock Creek 0 Little Lemonweir River Page 6 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Waterbody Start Mile End Mile TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed Onemile Creek 0.7 3.6 Juneau Default FAL* 39 Lower Lemonweir Onemile Creek 3.6 5.99 75 Cold 40 Lower Lemonweir Onemile Creek 5.99 Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 41 Lower Lemonweir Onemile Creek Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Cold 42 Lower Lemonweir 1287700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 18 Lower Baraboo 18335 1430800 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 96 Upper Big Eau Pleine Marathon 12407 1431800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL 97 Upper Big Eau Pleine Marathon 18336 1431800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 Default FAL? 94 Upper Big Eau Pleine Wood 12233 1370800 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 66 Central Yellow 3.8 Marathon 12460 1455600 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 101 Upper Rib 3.8 10 Marathon 18354 1455600 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 LFF 106 Upper Rib Scotch Creek 10 18 Marathon 12461 1455600 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 105 Upper Rib Seeley Creek 0 13.12 Sauk 12990 1275300 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 6 Lower Baraboo Sevenmile Creek 0 15 Juneau 13061 1302400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 37 Lower Lemonweir Seymour Creek 0 2.63 Juneau 13024 1291400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL* 23 Lower Baraboo Seymour Creek 2.63 6.48 Juneau, Vernon 946527 1291400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 24 Lower Baraboo Seymour Creek 6.48 11.49 Monroe, Vernon 946550 1291400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL* 25 Lower Baraboo Silver Creek 0 4.4 Sauk 13004 1280000 Total Phosphorus Low DO, Degraded Habitat 75 Default FAL 12 Lower Baraboo South Br Creek (S Br Baraboo) 0 1.25 Vernon 13029 1289800 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 22 Lower Baraboo South Fork Lemonweir River 6.21 12.2 Monroe 888023 1338500 Total Phosphorus Low DO, Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 54 Lower Lemonweir South Fork Lemonweir River 13.28 22.03 Monroe 3870704 1338500 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 56, 57 Lower Lemonweir Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) 0 10.27 Langlade, Marathon 12431 1440800 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL (Cold) 107, 216 Upper Eau Claire WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 13063 1303400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Juneau 947890 1303400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 7.23 Juneau 1517524 1303400 Total Phosphorus 7.23 13 Juneau 947914 1303400 Plum Creek 0 8 Sauk 13021 Raeder Creek 0 3 Marathon Randall Creek 9 10 Randall Creek 0 9 Rocky Creek 0 12.22 Scotch Creek 0 Scotch Creek Spring Brook Creek Counties Assessment Unit Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 Page 7 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Waterbody Start Mile End Mile Counties Assessment Unit Spring Brook Creek 10.26 12.65 Langlade Squaw Creek 0 9 Marathon, Wood Tributary to the South Branch of Yellow River 0 1.07 Twin Creek 0 Unnamed Creek (T23n,R3e,S10,Sesw,72) Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed Default FAL 216 Upper Eau Claire 75 LFF (FAL) 84 Upper Little Eau Pleine Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 LAL (FAL) 71 Central Yellow Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 11 Lower Baraboo 1371200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 67, 72 Central Yellow 12235 1371200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 72, 313 Central Yellow Wood 3987535 5016277 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 67 Central Yellow 2.33 Clark 3987619 5015142 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 70 Central Yellow 0 1.25 Wood 4699046 1372500 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 68 Central Yellow 2.01 32.01 Langlade 1496996 1445700 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Cold 108 Upper Eau Claire W Branch Big Eau Pleine River 0 8.7 Marathon, Taylor 12412 1432700 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 LFF 98 Upper Big Eau Pleine W Branch Big Eau Pleine River 8.7 12 Taylor 12413 1432700 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 100 Upper Big Eau Pleine West Br Baraboo River 0 7.24 Juneau, Vernon 13026 1288400 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 Default FAL 20, 138, 188 Lower Baraboo West Br Big Creek 0 8 Juneau, Sauk 18427 1281200 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 13, 16 Lower Baraboo Wild Creek 0 10 Marathon 12361 1420400 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 FAL 83, 328 Upper Little Eau Pleine Wisconsin River (At Castle Rock Lake) 158.68 173.27 Adams/Juneau 885667 1179900 Total Phosphorus Low DO 40 WWSF 59 Central Central WI Wisconsin River (At Petenwell Lake) 173.27 187.81 Adams/Juneau 885864 1179900 Total Phosphorus Eutrophication, Degraded Biological Community 40 WWSF 74 Central Central WI Yellow River 39.1 50.01 Clark, Juneau, Wood 12205 1352800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 FAL Warmwater 61, 140 Central Yellow Yellow River 0 8.43 Juneau 12230 1352800 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community 75 Default FAL 60, 199 Central Yellow Yellow River 8.43 39.1 Juneau, Wood 5541128 1352800 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 75 Default FAL 61,199 Central Yellow Yellow River 53.01 57.3 Wood 5541350 1352800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 FAL Warmwater 64, 200 Central Yellow Yellow River 57.3 74.48 Wood 5541396 1352800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 FAL Warmwater 250, 307 Central Yellow WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 12432 1440800 Total Phosphorus Low DO 75 12363 1420700 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown Clark 1516846 1372800 Total Phosphorus 9 Sauk 18426 1279400 0 3 Wood 12234 Unnamed Creek (T23n,R3e,S10,Sesw,72) 3 5 Wood Unnamed Stream 0 1.94 Unnamed Stream 0 Unnamed Trib to Yellow River W Br Eau Claire River Page 8 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 . T O TA L P H O S P H O RU S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Waterbody Start Mile End Mile Yellow River 74.48 83.08 Clark, Wood Yellow River 83.08 97.59 Clark 0 18 Yellow River-S. Branch Counties Clark, Wood Assessment Unit Phosphorus Criteria2 (µg/L) Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)3 TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed FAL Warmwater 275 Central Yellow 75 FAL Warmwater 275 Central Yellow 75 Default FAL 69, 71 Central Yellow WBIC Pollutants Impairments1 5541476 1352800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 75 5541562 1352800 Total Phosphorus Water Quality Use Restrictions 12238 1372600 Total Phosphorus Degraded Biological Community Page 9 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 2 . S E D I M E N T / T O T A L S U S P E N D E D S O L I D S I M PA I R E D R I V E R A N D S T R E A M S E G M E N T S Start Mile End Mile Counties Babb Creek 0 6.42 Sauk 13003 1279100 Crossman Creek 0 6.43 Juneau, Sauk 13019 1286700 Silver Creek 0 4.4 Sauk 13004 West Br Baraboo River 0 7.24 Juneau, Vernon 13026 Waterbody (1) (1) Page 10 Assessment Unit WBIC Pollutants Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Impairments4 Phosphorus Criteria5 (µg/L) Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use (proposed DU, if different)6 TMDL Subbasin(s) Figure Region Tributary Watershed Degraded Habitat 75 Default FAL 10 Lower Baraboo Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Degraded Habitat, Turbidity 75 Default FAL 17 Lower Baraboo 1280000 Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Low DO, Degraded Habitat 75 Default FAL (LAL) 12 Lower Baraboo 1288400 Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Low DO 75 Default FAL 20, 138, 188 Lower Baraboo As described in Section 1.3, the sediment/TSS impaired river and stream segments listed have not been assigned allocations for sediment/TSS and are not explicitly addressed in this TMDL study. It is recommended that 9-Key Element Plans be developed to address the nonpoint sources that cause and contribute to degraded habitat and turbidity. It is anticipated that the allocations for phosphorus will address the low DO impairments. Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 3 . P H O S P H O R U S I M PA I R E D L A K E S A D D R E S S E D B Y T M D L Waterbody Size (Acres) Assessment Unit WBIC Big Eau Pleine Reservoir 4,909 352690 1427400 Castle Rock Reservoir 12,386 Adams, Juneau 424081 Petenwell Reservoir 23,001 Adams, Juneau Kawaguesaga Lake 700 Minocqua Lake Redstone Lake Lake DuBay (1) Lake Delton Lake Wisconsin (2) Counties Marathon Phosphorus Criteria7 (µg/L) Fish & Aquatic Life Designated Use 30 Default FAL Pollutants Total Phosphorus Impairments Low DO, Eutrophication, Excess Algal Growth Classification Reservoir Deep Lowland 1345700 Total Phosphorus Eutrophication, Water Quality Use Restrictions Reservoir Shallow Lowland 40 Default FAL 424132 1377100 Total Phosphorus Low DO, Water Quality Use Restrictions Reservoir Shallow Lowland 40 Oneida 128163 1542300 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown Two-Story 1,339 Oneida 128227 1542400 Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown 612 Sauk 13542 1280400 Total Phosphorus 4,045 Marathon, Portage 3900358 1412200 Total Phosphorus 249 Columbia 13546 1295400 Total Phosphorus 7,197 Sauk, Columbia 13500 1260600 Total Phosphorus Recreational Use Full body contact TMDL Subbasin Figure Region Tributary Watershed 87 Upper Big Eau Pleine Full body contact 59 Central Central WI Default FAL Full body contact 74 Central Central WI 15 Default FAL Full body contact 135 Headwaters Tomahawk Two-Story 15 Default FAL Full body contact 134 Headwaters Tomahawk Excess Algal Growth Reservoir Deep Lowland 30 Default FAL Full body contact 13 Lower Baraboo Excess Algal Growth Reservoir Shallow Lowland 100 Default FAL Full body contact 81 Upper Upper WI Reservoir 40 Default FAL Full body contact 30 Lower Lower WI Impounded Flowing Water 100 Default FAL Full body contact 1 Lower Lower WI Eutrophication, Water Quality Use Restrictions, Excess Algal Growth Low DO, Eutrophication, Recreational Restrictions Blue Green Algae 1 While the promulgated criteria for Lake DuBay of 100 µg/L is not sufficient to remove the impairment of excessive algal growth (monitoring data indicates that the lake averages 89 µg/L and is still impaired), the TMDL analysis shows that resulting loads from the attainment of water quality criteria for Big Eau Pleine (criteria of 30 µg/L) coupled with reductions needed to meet downstream reservoirs will result in a phosphorus concertation for Lake DuBay sufficient to address the impairment of excessive algal growth. Lake DuBay is predicted to have a summer mean concentration of 37 µg/L under the TMDL allocations and 45 µg/L under the site-specific allocations proposed in Appendix K. 2 The current criteria for Lake Wisconsin is not adequate to address the listed impairments; however, the allocations found in Appendix K corresponding with a SSC of 47 µg/L, as discussed in Appendix C, addresses the impairments. 7 Phosphorus criteria (µg/L): The waterbody’s applicable phosphorus criterion under ch. NR 102.06 Page 11 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 3A. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IMPAIRED WATERS - LOWER WI RIVER BASIN Page 12 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 4B. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IMPAIRED WATERS – CENTRAL WI RIVER BASIN Page 13 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 5C. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IMPAIRED WATERS – UPPER WI RIVER BASIN Page 14 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 6D. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IMPAIRED WATERS – WI RIVER HEADWATERS Page 15 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 1.4. Narrative Water Quality Criteria All waters of the State of Wisconsin are subject to the following narrative water quality standard, as defined in s. NR 102.04(1), Wis. Adm. Code: “To preserve and enhance the quality of waters, standards are established to govern water management decisions. Practices attributable to municipal, industrial, commercial, domestic, agricultural, land development or other activities shall be controlled so that all waters including the mixing zone and the effluent channel meet the following conditions at all times and under all flow conditions: (a) Substances that will cause objectionable deposits on the shore or in the bed of a body of water, shall not be present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters of the state, (b) Floating or submerged debris, oil, scum or other material shall not be present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters of the states, (c) Materials producing color, odor, taste or unsightliness shall not be present in such amounts as to interfere with public rights in waters of the state.” Excessive phosphorus loading causes algal blooms in the Wisconsin River Basin, which may be characterized as floating scum, producing a green color, a strong odor and an unsightly condition. Sometimes these algal blooms contain toxins which limit recreational uses of the water bodies. Because of the low dissolved oxygen and degraded habitat impairments caused by TP, many designated fish and aquatic life uses are not supported in the waters of the Wisconsin River Basin. 1.5 Numeric Water Quality Criteria To address the effects of excessive phosphorus, WDNR established numeric criteria for total phosphorus in surface waters in 2010 (s. NR 102.06, Wis. Adm. Code). These numeric criteria (Table 4) are based on relationships between phosphorus and designated uses of surface waters, which are summarized in the Wisconsin Phosphorus Water Quality Standards Criteria: Technical Support Document (December, 2010). TA B L E 4 . W I S C O N S I N N U M E R I C P H O S P H O R U S C R I T E R I A Flowing Water8 Reservoirs Lakes Rivers 100 µg/L Streams 75 µg/L Stratified Reservoirs, Hydraulic residence time ≥ 14 days 30 µg/L Non-stratified Reservoirs, Hydraulic residence time ≥ 14 days 40 µg/L Stratified, two-story fishery lakes 15 µg/L Stratified seepage lakes 20 µg/L Stratified drainage lakes 30 µg/L Non-stratified lakes 40 µg/L µg/L = microgram per liter Administrative code also specifies that a “…site-specific criterion may be adopted in place of the generally applicable criteria where site-specific data and analysis using scientifically defensible methods and sound scientific rationale demonstrate a different criterion is protective of the designated use of the specific surface water segment or waterbody” (s. NR 102.06(7), Wis. Adm. Code). In the process of developing this TMDL, WDNR evaluated relationships between TP and recreational uses of impaired waters. These analyses indicate 8 Rivers and streams impounded by dams with a hydraulic residence time < 14 days are classified as impounded flowing waters and given applicable river/stream criteria. Page 16 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin that SSC may be appropriate for Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Lake Wisconsin (Table 5, see details of analysis in Appendix C). Because these recommended SSCs have not yet been promulgated and a TMDL must be based on promulgated narrative or numeric criteria, this TMDL contains two sets of TP allocations: one set for the current criteria located in Appendix J and another set for the recommended SSC located in Appendix K. Sections 5.4, 6.4, and 7.6 provide additional discussion concerning the allocations and proposed implementation of the SSC-based allocations should the SSC become promulgated. TA B L E 5 . R E C O M M E N D E D S I T E - S P E C I F I C P H O S P H O R U S C R I T E R I A . Waterbody Name Waterbody Type Default TP Criterion Potential Site-Specific TP Criterion Petenwell Reservoir Non-stratified Reservoir 40 µg/L 53 µg/L Castle Rock Reservoir Non-stratified Reservoir 40 µg/L 55 µg/L Impounded Flowing Water 100 µg/L 47 µg/L Lake Wisconsin Revisions to other administrative codes supporting P criteria implementation went into effect concurrently with changes to NR 102. Chapter NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, was revised to include procedures for translating numeric phosphorus criteria into water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs), and incorporating those limits into Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits. NR 151 revisions that also went into effect concurrently with the changes to NR 102 included new phosphorus index (P-Index) performance standards addressing phosphorus from agricultural lands. 1.6 Designated Uses All waters of the state have the following designated uses: fish and aquatic life; recreation; wildlife; and public health and welfare. Additionally, there are five subcategories of the fish and aquatic life use, which reflect differences in the potential aquatic communities present in water bodies. These aquatic life communities may be adversely impacted by phosphorus and sediment. Section NR 102.04(3), Wis. Adm. Code, defines these use subcategories as follows: FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE USES. The department shall classify all surface waters into one of the fish and other aquatic life subcategories described in this subsection. Only those use subcategories identified in paragraphs (a) to (c) shall be considered suitable for the protection and propagation of a balanced fish and other aquatic life community as provided in the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500; 33 USC 1251 et. seq. a) Cold water communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting a community of cold water fish and aquatic life, or serving as a spawning area for cold water fish species. This subcategory includes, but is not restricted to, surface waters identified as trout water by the department of natural resources (Wisconsin Trout Streams, publication 6-3600 (80)). b) Warm water sport fish communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting a community of warm water sport fish or serving as a spawning area for warm water sport fish. c) Warm water forage fish communities. This subcategory includes surface waters capable of supporting an abundant diverse community of forage fish and other aquatic life. d) Limited forage fish communities. (Intermediate surface waters). This subcategory includes surface waters of limited capacity and naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are capable of supporting only a limited community of forage fish and other aquatic life. e) Limited aquatic life. (Marginal surface waters). This subcategory includes surface waters of severely limited capacity and naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are capable of supporting only a limited community of aquatic life.” Page 17 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Most of the impaired water bodies in the Wisconsin River Basin are classified as warm water sport fish communities or warm water forage fish communities, and a few are classified as cold water communities. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 contain these designations for each impaired water body. RECREATIONAL USES. All surface waters shall be suitable for supporting recreational use. A sanitary survey or evaluation, or both to assure protection from fecal contamination, is the chief criterion for determining the suitability of a water for recreational use. Recreational use of surface waters may also be impaired by excessive algae blooms, consistent with the narrative standard in s. NR 102.04(1), Wis. Adm. Code (see Section 1.3). Because numeric criteria for algae blooms do not exist, Wisconsin’s Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WisCALM, http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/assessments.html) describes methods for assessing this type of recreational water quality impairment. Recreational algal impairment thresholds apply to lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers. 2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION In addition to being the state’s namesake river, the Wisconsin River is an important recreational, industrial, and natural resource to the State of Wisconsin. From its headwaters in Lac Vieux Desert in Vilas County to the outlet of Lake Wisconsin at Prairie du Sac Dam in Columbia County, the Wisconsin River travels 335 river miles flowing through diverse landscapes. Agriculture is the predominant land use in large portions of the basin - the extent of agricultural areas in the basin is illustrated in Figure 7. The dominant type of agriculture varies from mixed dairy and cash cropping (continuous corn/corn–soybean rotations) in the lower and upper basins, to potatoes, vegetables and cranberries in the central basin, and limited agriculture in the headwaters basin. Detailed maps of agricultural land use and land management throughout the project area are included in Appendix D. The State of the Lower Wisconsin River Basin Report (WDNR, 2002), The State of the Central Wisconsin River Basin Report (WDNR, 2002) and The Headwaters State of the Basin Report (WDNR, 2002) provide additional details on characteristics of the basin’s watershed, including geography, geology, soils, meteorology, groundwater, and ecological and cultural resources. Ecological Landscapes The TMDL watershed spans six distinct ecological landscapes (WDNR 2012) - the Western Coulee and Ridges in the southwest, the Central Sand Plains and Central Sand Hills in the central and southeast portion of the project area, the North Central Forest and Northern Highlands in the northern portion of the project area, and Forest Transition in the tension zone between the agricultural and forested landscapes (Figure 8). Each of these regions is described in more detail in the subsections below. Page 18 FIGURE 7. AGRICULTURAL AREAS Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 2.1.1 Western Coulees and Ridges The southwest portion of the project area, including portions of Columbia, Monroe, Richland, Sauk, and Vernon counties, lies within the Western Coulees and Ridges ecological landscape. More commonly referred to as the “driftless area” – this area is characterized by the absence of glacial material or “drift” left during the most recent glaciation, and is comprised of steep sided valleys and ridges with loess–capped plateaus, deeply dissected by high-gradient streams. This area is mostly underlain by Paleozoic sandstones and dolomites of Cambrian and Ordovician age and covered by windblown loess of varying thicknesses. In contrast to the more recently glaciated areas of the state, this area has few lakes and a greater density of streams. Vegetation in this area is predominantly comprised of forest and agriculture, with lesser amounts of grassland; wetlands are rare and occur mostly in river valleys. Primary forest cover is oak-hickory, while maple-basswood forests are common in areas not burned frequently before Euro-American settlement. With a mean growing season of 145 days, a mean annual temperature of 43.7°F, and mean annual precipitation of 32.6 inches, the climate of this ecoregion is favorable for agriculture. However, steep slopes limit intensive agricultural uses to broad ridge tops and parts of valleys above floodplains. Livestock and dairy farming is common in this area and have had a major impact on stream quality. The Cities of Baraboo and Reedsburg are located within this region of the TMDL project area. 2.1.2 Central Sand Plains FIGURE 8. ECLOLGICAL The Central Sand Plains gets its name from the large, flat expanse of LANDSCAPES lacustrine and outwash sand deposited during the most recent glaciation. The Central Sand Plains are underlain by Late Cambrian sandstone containing strata of dolomite and shale. The mean growing season in the Central Sand Plains is 135 days, the mean annual temperature is 43.8°F, and the mean annual precipitation is 32.8 inches. The shorter growing season, occasional freezing temperatures during summer, sandy soils, and abundance of wetlands limits agriculture in this ecological landscape west of the Wisconsin River. Agriculture is more prevalent east of the Wisconsin River, with an emphasis on cool season crops such as potatoes, vegetable crops, and early maturing corn. Center pivot irrigation is common here because of the sandy soils and shallow aquifers. 2.1.3 Central Sand Hills Along the southeast and central-east edge of the project area is a narrow sliver of the ecological landscape Central Sand Hills, including portions of Columbia, Dane, Adams, Portage, Waushara and Waupaca counties. The Central Sand Hills are covered in glacial deposits including a mix of moraines, drumlins, till plains, outwash features, and lake plains originating from the most recent glaciation. Glacial sediment in this area is typically 50 to 100 feet thick and underlain by Cambrian sandstone bedrock. Soils are primarily sands in the northwestern portion and sandy loam tills in the southeast. Page 19 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin The climate of Central Sand Hills is similar to the Central Sand Plains and Western Coulees and Ridges, and is thus suitable for agricultural use. This ecological landscape area supports a mix of agriculture - primarily cropland, dairy operations, and woodland. Most of the original vegetation has been cleared with forested areas remaining only on steeper end moraines and poorly drained depressions. Many wetlands have been drained and used for agriculture here. Irregular till plains, end moraines, kettles, and drumlins are common, and wetlands are found throughout the region, especially along end morainal ridges. There are fewer lakes here than in ecoregions to the north, but considerably more than in the driftless area to the west. 2.1.4 Forest Transition The Forest Transition ecological landscape lies along the northern border of Wisconsin’s Tension Zone, and supports both northern forests and agricultural areas. Within the TMDL project area, this includes all of Marathon County and portions of Wood, Portage, Langlade, Lincoln, Clark and Taylor Counties. The central portion of the Forest Transition lies primarily on glacial till plain underlain Precambrian volcanic or metamorphic bedrock, or Cambrian sandstones with inclusions of dolomite and shale. Soils are predominantly non-calcareous, moderately well-drained sandy loams derived from glacial till, but there is considerable diversity in the range of soil attributes. The area includes sandy soils formed in outwash as well as organic soils and loam and silt loam soils on moraines. The average growing season is 133 days, average annual temperature is 41.9°F and annual average precipitation is 32.6 inches. There is an adequate growing season and enough precipitation to support agricultural activity. Corn, small grains, and pastures are prevalent land uses in many parts of this ecological landscape. However, growing conditions in the Forest Transition are not as favorable for row crop agriculture as in southern Wisconsin. Land cover is predominantly forest and agriculture with lesser amounts of grassland/pasture and wetlands. Within this area, only Wood, Portage, and Marathon counties have greater than half their population living in metropolitan areas, mostly on or near the Wisconsin River. 2.1.5 North Central Forest Forests cover approximately 75% of the North Central Forest ecological landscape. The mesic northern hardwood forest is dominant, made up of sugar maple, basswood, and red maple, with some stands containing scattered hemlock, yellow birch, and/or eastern white pine pockets. The aspen-birch forest type group is also abundant. Forested and non-forested wetland communities are common and widespread. The landscape is characterized by 5 to 100 foot thick glacial deposits, including end and ground moraines, kettle depressions and pitted outwash, underlain by igneous and metamorphic bedrock. Within the project area, this landscape includes portions of Lincoln, Langlade, Oneida, Vilas and Price Counties. Organic soils (peats and mucks) are common in poorly drained lowlands. The mean growing season is 115 days, and the mean annual precipitation is 32.3 inches. The mean annual temperature is 40.3°F and summer temperatures can be cold or freezing at night in low-lying areas of the region, thereby limiting agricultural land use. 2.1.6 Northern Highlands The ecological landscape of Wisconsin River Basin Headwaters is primarily the Northern Highlands. This area is characterized by a globally significant concentration of glacial lakes and small connecting streams, rare aquatic species and extensive wetlands. Land cover is predominantly upland forest - including the state’s Page 20 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin greatest acreage of dry-mesic eastern white pine-red pine forests, wetlands, and lakes. There is a small amount of grassland and urban area, and limited agriculture. The Northern Highlands are underlain by igneous and metamorphic rock, generally covered by deposits of glacial drift from 5 feet to over 100 feet in depth. Most soils are sands and gravels, some with a loamy mantle. The climate is typical of northern Wisconsin, with a mean growing season of 122 days, mean annual temperature of 39.5 °F, and mean annual precipitation of 31.6 inches. The tourism oriented cities of Minocqua, Tomahawk and Eagle River are all located here. Hydrology and Water Resources The Wisconsin River itself is only one component of the complex hydrologic network of water resources within the project area. The following sections of the report describe the different categories of waterways addressed by the TMDL, and their numeric phosphorus criteria. 2.2.1 Wisconsin River Main stem The Wisconsin River originates at Lac Vieux Desert and from there to the Rhinelander Dam a numeric phosphorus criterion of 75 µg/L applies to the free flowing portions of the river. Water quality is excellent and portions of the upper river are classified as Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters in NR 102, Wis. Adm. Code. Downstream of the Rhinelander Dam, a numeric phosphorus criterion of 100 µg/L applies. For much of its length, the free flowing portions of the Wisconsin River main stem are well below the phosphorus criteria. 2.2.2 Wisconsin River Tributary Streams The numeric phosphorus criteria of all major tributary streams in the TMDL project area except two, is 75 µg/L. The two exceptions are the Baraboo River and the Lemonweir River, which like the Wisconsin River main stem, have numeric phosphorus criteria of 100 µg/L. Due to differences in watershed characteristics and land use, tributary streams west of the main stem generally have higher phosphorus concentrations and deliver higher pollutant loads into the Wisconsin River than those east of the main stem. 2.2.3 Lakes and Reservoirs As described in an earlier section of the report, the Wisconsin River system consists of 25 hydroelectric dams on the Wisconsin River. Upstream of each are impoundments that are highly valued local economic, social, recreation, and ecological resources. In addition, there are 21 storage impoundments on the river and its tributaries to regulate flow for hydropower generation. These storage impoundments range from smaller raised natural lakes in the headwaters region to large reservoirs over 6,000 acres. The sensitivity of all these impoundments to elevated phosphorus concentrations depends on their hydraulic residence time – that is, how quickly water moves through them. Residence time is defined as the length of time that water remains within the reservoir before continuing downstream. Waterbodies with longer residence times are more sensitive to excessive phosphorus concentrations due to the longer time available for water to warm and grow algae. In Wisconsin, reservoirs with a summer residence time of 14 days or greater have a numeric phosphorus criteria of 30 or 40 µg/L. Reservoirs with a residence time of less than 14 days have the numeric phosphorus criteria that applies to the primary stream or river entering the impounded water, i.e., 75 or 100 µg/L. The following subsections of this report describe three of the major reservoirs addressed by this TMDL. Two of these – Castle Rock Lake and Lake Petenwell are hydroelectric reservoirs on the main stem of the Wisconsin River. One of these reservoirs – Big Eau Pleine, is a tributary storage reservoir. Page 21 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 2.2.3.1 PETENWELL AND CASTLE ROCK RESERVOIRS Petenwell and Castle Rock are located at the downstream section of the central portion of the Wisconsin River main stem; they are the second and fifth largest inland lakes in the state of Wisconsin, respectively. Because both are unstratified reservoirs with a residence time greater than 14 days, both have numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus of 40 µg/L, though as stated in Section 1.5, the department is recommending SSC for both reservoirs. Petenwell is 23,173 acres with a maximum depth of 44 feet. Castle Rock is 12,981 acres with a maximum depth of 36 feet. A comprehensive management plan was developed for these reservoirs in 1996 (WDNR, 1996), which provides a summary of their impaired beneficial uses and recommends measures to mitigate the problems. Based on information in the management plan, impaired beneficial uses to Petenwell and Castle Rock include: impaired recreation, impaired aesthetics, undesirable blue-green algae blooms, some toxic algae, dioxin, mercury and PCB contaminated fish and sediments; degradation of desirable phytoplankton, zooplankton, bottom-dwelling organisms (benthos) and fish and wildlife communities because of poor water quality and lack of established rooted aquatic plants; low dissolved oxygen; and fish (carp) kills on the Petenwell Reservoir. This TMDL will address impairments related to excessive phosphorus and sediment, however it will not address dioxin, mercury and PCB contaminated fish and sediments. 2.2.3.2 THE BIG EAU PLEINE RESERVOIR The Big Eau Pleine Reservoir is a 6,348 acre storage reservoir on the Big Eau Pleine River, a tributary stream that discharges into the Wisconsin River at Lake DuBay in Marathon County. It has a maximum depth of 46 feet. Fish include musky, smallmouth bass, northern pike and walleye. The lake's water clarity is very low. Large fish kills due to low dissolved oxygen during the winter have occurred in the past and are an ongoing concern. Because the Big Eau Pleine is a stratified reservoir with a residence time of more than 14 days, its numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus is 30 µg/L. 2.2.3.3 LAKE DU BAY Lake Du Bay is a 4,649 acre hydroelectric reservoir on the Wisconsin River, in Marathon and Portage Counties. It has a maximum depth of 30 feet. Fish include musky, smallmouth bass, northern pike and walleye. The lake's water clarity is low. Because Lake Du Bay has a residence time of less than 14 days, its numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus is 100 µg/L. 2.2.3.4 LAKE WISCONSIN Lake Wisconsin is a 7,197 acre hydroelectric reservoir on the Wisconsin River, in Columbia and Sauk Counties. It has a maximum depth of 24 feet. The water is brown and moderately fertile. Largemouth bass, panfish, catfish and walleye are most common in the fishery. Other species contributing to the catch are muskellunge, northern pike and sturgeon. Because Lake Wisconsin has a residence time of less than 14 days, its numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus is 100 µg/L. 2.2.3.5 LAKE REDSTONE Lake Redstone is a 605 acre reservoir on Big Creek, in Sauk County. It was created in the 1970’s for real estate interests. It has a maximum depth of 36 feet. The lake reflects the extensive agricultural watershed it drains with heavy, late summer algal blooms. Fish include musky, panfish, largemouth bass, northern pike and walleye. Because Lake Redstone is a stratified reservoir with a residence time of more than 14 days, its numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus is 30 µg/L. 2.2.3.6 KAWAGUESAGA AND MINOCQUA LAKES Kawaguesaga and Minocqua Lakes are the lower most lakes in a complex chain of lakes in Oneida County. Water levels of both lakes are controlled by the dam at the outlet of Kawaguesaga Lake (Tomahawk River). These are raised natural lakes where the dam only increases lake levels by about 4 feet. Kawaguesaga Lake is 700 acres with a maximum depth of 44 feet. Minocqua Lake is 1,339 acres with a maximum depth of 61 feet. Fish include musky, panfish, largemouth & smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye and cisco. A key element of these lakes is that they support a cisco fishery in the lower strata of the lake. This requires that Page 22 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin these lakes attain and maintain dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion, the lowest layer in these stratified lakes. The numeric water quality criterion for total phosphorus is 15 µg/L. 2.2.3.7 LAKE DELTON Lake Delton is a 249 acre reservoir on Dell Creek, in Sauk County. It was created in the 1920’s as part of a resort development. It has an average depth of 12 feet. Fish include panfish, largemouth bass, northern pike, walleye and catfish. Because Lake Delton is an unstratified reservoir with a residence time of more than 14 days, its numeric water quality criteria for total phosphorus is 40 µg/L. 3 MONITORING Extensive water quality and flow monitoring was conducted in support of Wisconsin River TMDL development. In fact, the Wisconsin River TMDL monitoring program is among the most comprehensive watershed monitoring efforts ever undertaken in the state. It included four years of flow and water quality monitoring in the rivers, streams and lakes of the Wisconsin River Basin. The purpose of this comprehensive, long-term, large-scale monitoring effort was to gain an understanding of water quality conditions within the basin and to provide calibration and validation datasets for use in the development of watershed and reservoir response models. The four years (2009-2013) of Wisconsin River Basin monitoring data included main stem, tributary and reservoir monitoring sites, as described in the following sections, and illustrated in Figure 9 through Figure 13. Full technical documentation of the TMDL Water Quality monitoring effort is summarized in Appendix D. Wisconsin River Main Stem and Tributary Monitoring Water flow, phosphorus concentration and other water quality constituents, such as nitrogen and suspended solids, were measured year-round at thirteen sites along the main stem of the river, providing information about how much phosphorus is carried from north to south by the main stem. Water flow was measured either at 15 minute intervals or hourly, and water quality constituents were measured every 2 weeks. Field parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, transparency and conductivity were measured concurrently with other water quality constituents. Sites on the Wisconsin River at Merrill, Biron and Wisconsin Dells and the Baraboo River near Baraboo are part of Wisconsin’s Long Term Trends Rivers monitoring network and have been routinely monitored over several decades. Continuous temperature data was collected at the Nekoosa, Petenwell, and Castle Rock dams and on Tenmile Creek, Big Roche a Cri Creek, and the Yellow River. As on the main stem sites, water flow, phosphorus, other water quality constituents and field parameters were measured year-round at 19 sites on tributaries flowing into the main stem of the river, providing information about how much phosphorus each tributary watershed contributes to the main stem of the river. Results of main stem and tributary total phosphorus monitoring are illustrated on Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. Reservoir Monitoring Chlorophyll, phosphorus, other water quality constituents, and field parameters were measured semi-monthly from April – October at 20 sites on the five major reservoirs. Additionally, hourly flow data at the Petenwell and Castle Rock dams was provided by the Wisconsin River Power Company. At the reservoir sites, field parameters were measured in profile, at one-meter depth intervals from the water’s surface to the bottom of the lake. Thermistor strings were placed at multiple sites on Castle Rock and Petenwell to continuously monitor changes in thermal mixing of the reservoirs over the course of the summer. Algae samples were collected at multiple sites to identify the major algal species present as well as estimate the amount of algae present. The location and results of reservoir total phosphorus monitoring is illustrated in Figure 11 through Figure 13. Page 23 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Additional Phosphorus Evaluation Sites Phosphorus concentrations were measured monthly at 98 additional sites between May and October 2012, in order to provide an additional validation dataset independent from the main stem, tributary and reservoir monitoring sites just described. A subset of these sites received additional follow-up monitoring in 2013 and 2014 to determine phosphorus criteria attainment status. In addition, multiple water bodies were monitored through the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network, WVIC Trophic Status Monitoring and other lake and stream monitoring projects. Sediment Monitoring The phosphorus concentration and phosphorus release rates in reservoir sediment, under various conditions, was measured in multiple locations in Castle Rock, Petenwell and Big Eau Pleine Reservoirs and Lake DuBay. Appendix E contains complete documentation regarding methods and results of sediment monitoring measurements. Page 24 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE. 9. WIS RIVER MAIN STEM MONITORING: MEDIAN TP CONCENTRATION 2010–13 GROWING SEASON (MAY – OCT) Page 25 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 10. TRIBUTARY MONITORING - MEDIAN TP CONCENTRATION 2010–13 GROWING SEASON (MAY – OCT) Page 26 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Big Eau Pleine Reservoir Lake DuBay Geomean TP (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 Petenwell Reservoir Geomean TP (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 Castle Rock Reservoir Lake Wisconsin Geomean TP (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 FIGURE 11. RESERVOIR MONITORING – GEOMEAN TP CONCENTRATION SUMMER 2010-13 (JUN 1 – SEP 15) Page 27 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Big Eau Pleine Reservoir Lake DuBay Geomean Chla (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 Petenwell Reservoir Geomean Chla (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 Castle Rock Reservoir Lake Wisconsin Geomean Chla (µg/L) 2010-2013 June 1 - Sept 15 FIGURE 12. RESERVOIR MONITORING – GEOMEAN CHLOROPHYLL A CONCENTRATION SUMMER 2010-13 (JUN 1 – SEP 15) Page 28 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Big Eau Pleine Reservoir Lake DuBay % of Days Lake Exceeds Chla Standard 2010-2013 June - Sept 15 Castle Rock Reservoir % of Days Lake Exceeds Chla Standard 2010-2013 June - Sept 15 % of Days Lake Exceeds Chla Standard 2010-2013 June - Sept 15 FIGURE 13. RESERVOIR MONITORING – GEOMEAN CHLOROPHYLL A CONCENTRATION SUMMER 2010-2013 (JUN 1 – SEP 15) Page 29 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 4 SOURCE ASSESSMENT Sources of phosphorus loading in the Wisconsin River TMDL project area include discharges from regulated municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff, urban runoff (both regulated and nonregulated), and natural runoff (e.g., forests and wetlands). To develop and calibrate the models used in this analysis, information about current or “existing” nonpoint, urban, and wastewater discharges were used. To develop the TMDL, “baseline” conditions were determined and reflect current regulatory conditions. The following sections describe the methods used to determine baseline pollutant loadings from all source categories within the Wisconsin River TMDL basin. Baseline loading values assist with understanding the relative contribution of each source to each TMDL reach, and set a foundation for the allocation of allowable pollutant loads. Spatial Framework The Wisconsin River TMDL project area was subdivided (Figure 14A-D) for the purpose of assessing pollutant load generation and receiving water loading capacity, and for the development of load allocations. Specifically, the TMDL project area was subdivided by first identifying “hydrologic break points” in the basin according to the criteria listed in Table 6, and then delineating the upstream reach and subbasin area draining to each point. TA B L E 6 . C R I T E R I A F O R S I T I N G H Y D R O L O G I C B R E A K P O I N T S I N T H E TMDL PROJECT AREA.  Locations where water quantity and quality  Locations where local water quality does were measured during the model period not meet numeric water quality criteria for use in model calibration. (i.e., impaired reaches).  Locations where there are major hydrologic  Locations where there are significant transitions, such as the confluence of two changes in land use or land cover. large streams  Locations where there is a change in the  At point source outfalls – except where numeric water quality criterion, such as streamflow does not significantly change where a stream or river flows into an between the outfall location and the impoundment, or a stream flows into a next downstream breakpoint. river. A total of 337 breakpoints were identified and the corresponding TMDL subbasins and TMDL reaches were delineated using each breakpoint as a pour point. The resulting average subbasin size is 26 mi2. This is smaller than the average HUC12 watershed (32 mi2), which is the scale at which TMDL implementation strategies are typically planned. Within each subbasin is a single “reach” which can be either a stream or an impoundment. The loads generated from each subbasin are delivered to the reach and propagate downstream through the drainage system. Page 30 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 14A. TMDL SUBBASINS – LOWER BASIN LOWER WI RIVER BASIN Page 31 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 15B. TMDL SUBBASINS – CENTRAL BASIN Page 32 CENTRAL WI RIVER BASIN Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 16C. TMDL SUBBASINS – UPPER BASIN UPPER WI RIVER BASIN Page 33 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 17D. TMDL SUBBASINS – HEADWATERS BASIN Page 34 WI RIVER HEADWATERS Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Analysis Framework 4.2.1 Water Quality Model Selection Because the Wisconsin River Basin is a large and diverse system, several different models, each with a special purpose, were used for calculating baseline pollutant loads (Table 7). TA B L E 7 . D E S C R I P T I O N S O F M O D E L S POLLUTANT LOADS. Model Primary Inputs FLUXMASTER Measured daily streamflow and TSS and TP concentration samples. USED TO DETERMINE BASELINE Purpose Estimating site-specific monthly TP/TSS loads for the purpose of model calibration. WinSLAMM Measured daily precipitation, soils, and land use. Generation of urban daily TP/TSS loads to feed into SWAT. SWAT Measured daily climate variables, land use, soils, and topography. Routing submodel Monthly land-based TSS/TP loads estimated by SWAT and WinSLAMM. Estimate daily nonpoint source TP/TSS loads, integrate point source and urban loads, and calibrate to FLUXMASTER loads. Account for monthly in-stream storage and resuspension of TP, while also correcting biases in SWAT-calibrated TSS and TP loads. 4.2.1.1 FLUXMASTER FLUXMASTER is an empirical model that was used to estimate site-specific pollutant loads. To fit a FLUXMASTER model, concentration samples are taken intermittently (e.g., bi-weekly) and for those days when a sample was taken, the concentration is paired with daily average streamflow to estimate a load on that day—these loads are then fitted in a regression. The predictor variables in the regression are streamflow, day of the year, and decimal year. FLUXMASTER is standard software developed and used by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for predicting loads. These loads can then be used to calibrate a watershed loading model such as SWAT or HSPF (Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN). 4.2.1.2 WINSLAMM Urban loads (both permitted and non-permitted) were quantified using the WinSLAMM model. The State of Wisconsin has codified the WinSLAMM model as the official software for assessing urban runoff compliance, and was therefore chosen for this TMDL to remain consistent with Wisconsin statute. WinSLAMM is a mechanistic model that estimates daily runoff and pollutant loading based on precipitation, soil type, and land use. The resulting runoff and pollutant loads were later integrated into the overall watershed SWAT model (urban area footprints were cut from the watershed model to avoid double counting). The WinSLAMM (Version 10.0) model was used to simulate TSS and TP loads from urban areas in the TMDL project area (Figure 18 and Table 8). WinSLAMM was selected because of its ability to model pollutant loads generated by small storm events. Also, it allows the user to define more categories of urban types (e.g., paved parking lots, roofs, etc.), and loadings from many of these categories have been well validated in the field. A full description of the urban area modeling methodology using WinSLAMM is documented in Appendix D. Page 35 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin In urban areas drained by a network of curb and gutters and storm sewers, the drainage area has been altered from its natural topography. For this reason, within permitted MS4s the urban model area draining to each TMDL reach was delineated according to outfall locations and outfall watershed mapping rather than the subbasin boundaries described in Section 4.1. Within the TMDL project area, the extent of the urban model was delineated to include the following: 1) Cities and villages, excluding the following: a) Large, contiguous non-urbanized, undeveloped areas b) Undeveloped floodplain islands, and areas mapped as open water 2) Urbanized areas9 within townships that have a permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) 3) State Department of Transportation right-of-way located within an urbanized area, and county transportation right-of-way located within an urbanized area of a county that has a permitted MS4 Merrill        Kronenwetter Marathon Co Mosinee Rib Mountain Rothschild Schofield Wausau Marshfield WI Rapids Baraboo  Stevens Point  UWSP Portage FIGURE 18. LOCATION OF PERMITTED MS4S TA B L E 8 . L I S T O F P E R M I T T E D M S 4 S Permittee C. of Baraboo C. of Marshfield C. of Merrill C. of Portage County Sauk Wood/Marathon Lincoln Columbia Permittee C. of Schofield V. of Kronenwetter Co. of Marathon V. of Rothschild County Marathon Marathon Marathon Marathon Permittee V. of Weston T. of Rib Mountain UW-Stevens Point County Marathon Marathon Portage 4.2.1.3 SWAT The SWAT model was the primary model used to simulate and calibrate watershed pollutant loading (Appendix D). The SWAT model is a physically based model that simulates stream flow, sediment loss, and nutrient exports (Neitsch et al., 2002a). Agricultural, natural, and non-permitted urban developed loads were estimated directly using the SWAT model. Urban loads estimated by WinSLAMM and point source loads were integrated into the SWAT model. The SWAT model was calibrated at several locations using site-specific loads calculated by FLUXMASTER. SWAT was selected because it maintains open-source model code and an easy-to-use interface. It has a history of successful implementation throughout Wisconsin and has successfully been used to evaluate agriculturally dominant watersheds for sediment and nutrient TMDLs (Cadmus, 2011; Cadmus, 2012). Another reason for selecting SWAT was because SWAT has tools for simulating complex agriculture operations. The agricultural landscape throughout the basin is heterogeneous, ranging from dairy farming in the north central region, potato/vegetable cropping in the Central Sands region, and corn/soybean cropping in the southern region. Furthermore, there is diversity in tillage and fertilizer usage within each farming operation type, creating a diverse landscape of agricultural management. The accurate representation of 9 "Urbanized area” is defined herein as an area classified as urbanized by the 2010 Decennial Census. For the purpose of this document “urbanized area” and “urban model area" are not the same.  Page 36 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin agriculture was particularly important to the development of the Wisconsin River Basin SWAT model— preliminary assessments of the monitoring data collected showed that agricultural regions of the basin deliver a significant fraction of the overall phosphorus and sediment loads, and therefore a significant effort was undertaken to inventory agricultural sources. Use of the SWAT model provided the opportunity to distinguish between land cover and land management in the model, and to model not only their spatial variability, but their variability in time. The innovative method used to spatially and temporally define land cover and land management within agricultural areas throughout the basin is summarized in Figure 19. Full documentation of the land cover and land management definition process and its results are detailed and mapped in Appendix D. 1 2 3 4 Define Crop Rotations Define Field Rotations Meet with Counties Compare to Field Data Meetings were held with local experts (county conservationists and agricultural professionals) to confirm and/or refine crop rotations, and to specify management practices (e.g., tillage and nutrient application). The updated crop rotation dataset was validated by comparing it to independently measured data sources, including cattle inventory records, county crop acreage reports, dairy producer points, and field transect surveys. To define the crop rotations in each field, satellite-derived landcover maps were used showing the types of crops growing each year over a five year period (2008–12). Crop rotations were then grouped into specific field rotations, such as dairy, cash grain, continuous corn, or potato/vegetable. FIGURE 19. DEFINING LAND COVER AND LAND MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS. The full SWAT model included agricultural, background, urban, and point source TSS and TP loads. Monitored loads from dischargers and estimated urban loads from WinSLAMM were integrated with the SWAT simulation. With all sources combined, the SWAT model was calibrated to fit site-specific loads calculated by FLUXMASTER. Details of the SWAT model and calibration results are described in Appendix D. 4.2.1.4 TRIBUTARY ROUTING SUB-MODEL A custom empirical model was developed to address three concerns with the SWAT model: Page 37 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 1. Estimates of loads from SWAT HRUs can be thought of as the loads that are exported from fields rather than the loads that are ultimately delivered downstream. Therefore, HRU loads are nearly always larger than delivered loads, unless the SWAT model is configured such that reaches in the model act as sources (i.e. internal loading). 2. The calibrated SWAT model was not able to capture some seasonal fluctuations in TP loading, which probably results from transient storage and release of phosphorus from stream sediments. 3. The calibrated SWAT model still had residual bias after calibration. The custom empirical model was calibrated to fit streamflow, TP, and TSS loads at tributary sites using seasonality and lag coefficients that minimize the root mean square error and percent bias of delivered loads. The main stem of the Wisconsin River with its many impoundments traps far more TP and TSS than tributaries along the main stem. An additional empirical model was built to estimate deposition of TP along the main stem and below the Big Eau Pleine Dam. See Appendix D for more details. 4.2.1.5 MAIN STEM ROUTING SUB-MODEL As described in Section 4.2.1.4, transport of total phosphorus (TP) through tributaries was estimated by SWAT model calibration, followed by application of a tributary routing sub-model. Because the SWAT model was not calibrated to main stem Wisconsin River stations downstream of Merrill, a separate method was needed to estimate transport on the main stem. This section addresses the question: what fraction of tributary TP loads are delivered to points downstream? The time scale of the analysis is the average annual load over the 201013 period when the highest frequency monitoring occurred. Because TP load estimates are tightly tied to flow records, the quality of the flow records at main stem stations was first evaluated. There are twelve stations with daily streamflow on the main stem between Merrill and Muscoda. Four of these stations are operated by the USGS, and are considered to be the most accurate. The other stations are operated by hydroelectric companies, most of which report data to the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Corporation (WVIC). The data from most of these stations is of unknown quality. First, a linear regression between mean discharge and drainage area was fit for the four USGS gages (Figure 20). Then, the “sum of tributaries” flow for each station was calculated by summing measured flows where available and SWAT modeled flows on ungauged tributaries. Of the WVIC stations, three (Stevens Point, Wisconsin Rapids, and Nekoosa) are closely aligned to the USGS gage regression and slightly below the sum of tributaries estimates. Mean flows at the other four WVIC stations (Wausau, DuBay, Petenwell, and Castle Rock) are significantly lower than predicted by the USGS gage regression and sum of tributaries estimates. Flow at the Prairie du Sac dam, which is operated by Alliant Energy, is significantly higher than predicted by the USGS gage regression and sum of tributaries estimate. Based on this evaluation, TP load estimates at the USGS gages and the three WVIC stations where flows align with the USGS regression should be considered most accurate. Next, the measured average annual TP load at the Wisconsin Dells station (454 t) was compared to the sum of gauged tributary loads where available, SWAT-estimated loads for ungauged areas, and direct discharges to the main stem (623 t) (Table 9), giving a net TP retention of 27% (73% delivery). To distribute this TP retention through the main stem, delivery fractions (maximum=1) for reservoir reaches were calculated to match the pattern in measured TP load, particularly at stations with apparently unbiased flow estimates. For example, all of the retention observed between Merrill and Rothschild was assumed to happen between Wausau and Rothschild because that reach contains Lake Wausau and the TP load estimate at Rothschild is assumed to be more accurate than at Wausau. TP delivery through Lake Dubay was estimated at Stevens Point rather than at the Lake Dubay dam because flow at Dubay appears to be underestimated. TP delivery through Petenwell and Castle Rock was estimated by matching the observed TP load at Wisconsin Dells while assuming 100% delivery between Castle Rock and Wisconsin Dells and balancing the differences between measured and predicted loads at the Petenwell and Castle Rock dams. Even with 100% delivery, the sum of Page 38 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TP loads between Wisconsin Dells and Prairie du Sac (Lake Wisconsin) is underestimated, though this discrepancy is probably due to the overestimate of flow at Prairie du Sac. Overall, this process of distributing TP retention through the main stem Wisconsin River produces a pattern that closely matches the observed pattern and is consistent with expectations that retention should be generally proportional to water residence time (Figure 21). TA B L E 9 . AV E R A G E A N N U A L ( 2 0 1 0 - 1 3 ) D I S C H A R G E , T P L O A D, A N D E S T I M AT E D T P D E L I V E RY F R AC T I O N S F O R M A I N S T E M W I S C O N S I N R I V E R M O N I TO R I N G S TAT I O N S. TP Delivery Fraction Sum of Tributary Discharge (cfs) Sum of Tributary TP Load (tons) Sum of Tributary TP Load with Delivery (tons) Station ID Station Name Drainage Area (mi2) 353068 Merrill 2,760 373007 Wausau 3,060 1 2,159 2,460 142 163 163 10031102 Rothschild 4,020 0.945 3,281 3,277 248 262 248 10014652 DuBay 4,900 0.880 3,758 4,182 346 403 342 503059 Stevens Point 4,990 1 4,122 4,254 349 410 349 723002 Wisconsin Rapids 5,380 1 4,416 4,637 379 466 405 723259 Nekoosa 5,665 1 4,661 4,941 475 517 456 293130 Petenwell 5,970 0.815 4,606 5,215 364 530 382 10017791 Castle Rock 7,060 0.913 5,469 6,116 388 593 407 573052 Wisconsin Dells 8,000 1 6,726 6,972 500 686 500 10029830 Prairie du Sac 9,180 1 8,512 7,985 679 830 644 223282 Muscoda 10,400 Measured Discharge (cfs) 2,205 Measured TP Load (tons) 137 8,959 4.2.2 Model Simulation Period The chosen model simulation period was the years 2002 to 2013. The project was funded in 2009; monitoring began in 2010 and ended in 2013 which established the end of the simulation period. The beginning of the simulation period was largely determined by typical patterns of agriculture. An average crop rotation cycle is about six years—in order to span a range of weather conditions, two crop rotation cycles results in a total of 12 years and 12 years prior to 2013 is 2002. The range of weather conditions between 2002 and 2013 was shown to be representative of the historical average. For three of the long-term trend sites within the basin (Wisconsin River at Merrill, Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Rapids, and Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Dells), the streamflow regime in the model simulation period was compared to the streamflow regime between the years of 1980 and 2014. Streamflow regimes were compared by overlaying plots of streamflow quantiles for the simulation period and the historical period, and visually affirming that the distributions of streamflows overlapped. Page 39 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 20. PLOT OF MEAN DISCHARGE (2010-13) ON THE MAIN STEM WISCONSIN RIVER BETWEEN MERRILL AND PRAIRIE DU SAC. Note: The sum of tributary flows is a combination of measured flows where available, and SWAT modeled flows on ungauged tributaries. The dashed line is a linear regression on the USGS gages only. Page 40 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 21. PLOT OF MEAN ANNUAL TP LOAD (2010-13) ON THE MAIN STEM WISCONSIN RIVER BETWEEN MERRILL AND PRAIRIE DU SAC. Note: The sum of tributary loads is a combination of measured loads where available, and SWAT modeled loads on ungauged tributaries. Delivered tributary loads were calculated by applying the delivery fractions in Table 9. 4.2.3 Calibration Results For assessing model fit, well established guidelines in the scientific literature were followed. Moriasi et al. (2007) has been cited nearly 2,775 times (August, 2016, www.scholar.google.com) because it establishes numeric benchmarks for model performance that are adaptable to most SWAT (and other hydrologic models, empirical and mechanistic) applications. The numeric criteria were calculated using two objective functions: 1) percent bias (PBIAS), and 2) Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Benchmarks were met for streamflow, TSS, and Page 41 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TP for all sites with the exception of TSS for the Baraboo River at Reedsburg and Mill Creek (Table 10 and Table 11). TA B L E 1 0 . G E N E R A L P E R F O R M A N C E R AT I N G S F O R R E C O M M E N D E D S TATI S T I C S F O R A M O NT H LY T I M E S T E P ( F R O M M O R I A S I E T A L . , 2 0 0 7 ) . Performance  Rating  NSE  Very good  PBIAS (%)  Streamflow  Sediment  N, P  0.75 < NSE ≤ 1.00  PBIAS < ±10  PBIAS < ±15  PBIAS < ±25  Good  0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75  ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15  ±15 ≤ PBIAS < ±30  ±25 ≤ PBIAS < ±40  Satisfactory  0.50 < NSE ≤ 0.65  ±15 ≤ PBIAS < ±25  ±30 ≤ PBIAS < ±55  ±40 ≤ PBIAS < ±70  Unsatisfactory  NSE ≤ 0.50  PBIAS ≥ ±25  PBIAS ≥ ±55  PBIAS ≥ 70  4.2.4 Existing Conditions Model Results The average annual phosphorus load delivered by each major tributary watershed into the Wisconsin River, as calculated by the SWAT model for “existing” conditions, is illustrated in Figure 22 and the phosphorus yield for each subbasin is illustrated in Figure 23. The relative percentages of each phosphorus source type and total magnitude of the phosphorus load at the outlet of each tributary watershed are illustrated in the tributary watershed figures in Appendix A. The relative magnitude of the “existing” total phosphorus load at various points along the main stem of the Wisconsin River is illustrated in Figure 24. Model results are presented in much greater detail in Appendix D. Page 42 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin T A B L E 1 1 . F I N A L F I T S T A T I S T I C S O F S T R E A M F L O W, T S S , A N D T P A F T E R BIAS-CORRECTION. Streamflow TSS TP Station Name n NSE PBIAS n NSE PBIAS n NSE PBIAS Baraboo River at Main Street, Reedsburg, WI 144 0.80 0.0 24 -0.16 66.8 24 0.58 24.7 Baraboo River near Baraboo, WI 144 0.86 0.0 120 0.81 0.0 132 0.89 0.0 Big Eau Pleine River at Stratford, WI 144 0.77 0.0 96 0.45 0.2 Big Rib River at Rib Falls, WI 51 0.82 0.0 36 0.79 0.0 Big Roche a Cri Creek at Hwy 21 44 0.79 0.0 36 0.15 0.4 36 0.80 0.0 Eau Claire River at Kelly, WI 144 0.70 0.0 36 0.80 9.5 48 0.85 0.0 Fenwood Creek at Bradley, WI 51 0.65 0.0 48 0.36 0.0 Freeman Creek at Halder, WI 51 0.71 0.0 48 0.69 0.0 Lemonweir at New Lisbon 44 0.88 0.0 36 0.78 0.0 36 0.76 0.0 Little Eau Pleine River near Rozellville, WI 45 0.71 0.7 36 0.47 4.8 36 0.80 0.5 36 0.52 66.5 36 0.79 30.4 36 0.82 0.0 Mill Creek at County Hwy PP 45 0.78 10.0 Pine River at Center Avenue near Merrill, WI 45 0.75 0.0 Plover River at Hwy 10/66 45 0.65 0.0 36 0.87 0.0 36 0.90 -0.4 Prairie River near Merrill, WI 144 0.63 -9.5 48 0.34 -40.4 48 0.69 -16.6 Spirit River at Spirit Falls 144 0.64 10.4 24 0.41 -25.7 Ten Mile Creek near Nekoosa 144 0.85 0.0 48 0.92 0.0 West Branch of Baraboo River at Hillsboro, WI 144 0.70 17.3 Wisconsin River at Castle Rock Dam 144 0.69 17.2 Wisconsin River at Lake DuBay Dam 144 0.77 14.5 60 0.41 14.9* Wisconsin River at Merrill, WI 144 0.70 0.0 132 0.70 0.0 Wisconsin River at Nekoosa Dam 144 0.78 8.0 60 0.54 12.1* Wisconsin River at Petenwell Dam 144 0.68 19.9 Wisconsin River at Rothschild, WI 144 0.78 -1.1 36 0.81 5.6 Wisconsin River at Stevens Point Dam 144 0.79 2.4 60 0.35 18.8* Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Dells 144 0.78 6.6 Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Rapids 144 0.77 7.0 Wisconsin River below Prairie du Sac Dam 69 0.85 -0.2 Yellow River at Babcock 144 0.81 0.9 24 0.59 5.6 24 0.64 0.4 Yellow River at Hwy 21 44 0.83 0.0 36 0.1 -1.3 36 0.56 -2.0 48 132 0.69 0.76 0.0 0.2 Page 43 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 22. AVERAGE ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD DELIVERED BY MAJOR TRIBUTARY WATERSHEDS Page 44 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 23. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (TP) YIELDS PER SUBBASIN Page 45 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Headwaters Below Merrill Above Lake DuBay Above Petenwell Below Lake DuBay Below Castle Rock Lake Lake Wisconsin Outlet FIGURE 24. SOURCES OF PHOSPHORUS LOADS IN THE WISCONSIN RIVER BASIN Page 46 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Analysis of Baseline Phosphorus and Sediment Loading 4.3.1 Nonpoint Source Loading Baseline flow and phosphorus loads from nonpoint sources were generated in the SWAT model. Natural or background sources of loads from forest, grassland, wetlands, and other natural areas were estimated from forest, grassland, and wetland land covers in the SWAT model. Baseline agricultural loads were calculated from the crop land cover areas including dairy, cash grain and potato and vegetable rotations in the SWAT model. Baseline loads for non-permitted urban areas were calculated from the non-background and nonagricultural land covers outside of permitted MS4 municipal boundaries as determined both in SWAT and in WinSLAMM. Specifically, developed areas within the municipal limits of cities and villages not covered by an MS4 WPDES permit were simulated with the WinSLAMM model. Developed areas located outside of city and village limits, such as roads and rural subdivisions, were modeled as developed areas in SWAT. Details regarding the modeling conditions used to determine baseline loads from background, agricultural, and nonpermitted urban loads can be found in the SWAT model report (Appendix D). Baseline phosphorus loads for background, agricultural, and non-permitted urban sources are shown in Table F-1 of Appendix F. 4.3.2 Point Source Loading Methods for determining the baseline flows and loads for individual and general permittees are described in the following sections. 4.3.2.1 INDIVIDUAL PERMITS The phosphorus baseline loads for municipal and industrial wastewater discharges covered by an individual WPDES permit with specified limits were based on the concentration limit and design flow (annual average design flow for POTWs; highest average annual flow over five years (2012-2016) for industrial dischargers). If a permitted limit did not exist, measured data from the facility was used in place of the concentration limit to determine the baseline load. To be representative of the ch. NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, technology-based effluent limit (TBEL) for phosphorus, all wastewater point source baseline TP concentrations were set to an effluent limit of 1.0 mg/L unless the individual permittee’s TBEL was less than 1.0 mg/L, in which case the lower TP permitted effluent limit was used. During TMDL development, non-contact cooling water (NCCW) discharges were evaluated for the purposes of determining whether WLAs for phosphorus were needed to meet TMDL goals. Elevated phosphorus concentrations may be present in NCCW discharges where city water is the main source, due to the use of additives to control lead in municipal water supplies. Phosphorus WQBELs that are imposed as a result of this TMDL, or according to s. NR 217.13, Wis. Adm. Code, do not intend to suggest that additives in finished drinking water are not needed or should not be used. In the case of lead, additives are often needed to ensure healthy and safe drinking water. However, alternatives may need to be explored to reduce phosphorus inputs into receiving waters. For facilities with individual permits that add phosphorus to their discharge or that use water from a public water supply that adds phosphorus, design flows and discharge concentrations were used to determine individual WLAs. For pass through systems (i.e., facilities with surface water intake structures) where phosphorus is not added and the water is withdrawn from and discharged to the same waterbody, the baseline condition for the allocation process utilized actual discharge flows with TP concentrations set to zero to reflect that no net addition of phosphorus is occurring. This would result in an allocation of zero, but allow the facility to discharge the pass through phosphorus load. Page 47 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Baseline flows and loads for individual permittees are listed in Table F-2 of Appendix F and facility locations are shown in Figure 25A - D (map numbers in the table correspond to point labels in the figures). Page 48 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 25A. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES – LOWER BASIN LOWER WI RIVER BASIN Page 49 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 26B. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES – CENTRAL BASIN Page 50 CENTRAL WI RIVER BASIN Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 27C. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES – UPPER BASIN UPPER WI RIVER BASIN Page 51 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 28D. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES – HEADWATERS BASIN Page 52 WI RIVER HEADWATERS Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 4.3.2.2 GENERAL PERMITS Baseline phosphorus loads for general permittees located within an MS4 boundary were included in the MS4 baseline load. Baseline phosphorus loads for general permittees located outside of MS4 areas were included as 10% of the non-permitted urban baseline load for TP by subbasin. The assumption of 10% was based on the number and typical types of facilities present within the watersheds and best professional judgment of the TMDL Development Team. 4.3.2.3 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4S) There are 15 permitted MS4s within the TMDL area (Table 8). Baseline MS4 TP and TSS loads were determined from the WinSLAMM modeling described in Section 4.2.1.2 and detailed in Appendix D. The WinSLAMM results used in the existing conditions SWAT model were adjusted for baseline conditions to reflect the NR 216 20% TSS reduction requirement and corresponding 15% reduction in TP. Because of the large spatial expanse of the Wisconsin River Basin, each modeled MS4 area utilized different rainfall files to best represent local conditions. Therefore unique monthly flows and loads were generated for each MS4 to determine baseline conditions. Figure 29A – C show the locations and boundaries of each permitted MS4. Table 12 lists the area of each MS4 within SWAT subbasins, and serves as a legend to Figure 29A – C by listing an ID code that can be referenced to each map. MS4 baseline values are shown in Appendix F, Table F-3. Although included in the table, Marathon County and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point are both covered by a WPDES MS4 permit but will not receive individual allocations. Instead, they are accounted for in the portions of each city, village, or town MS4 that they discharge to or lie within; however, these regulated MS4s that are not given specific allocations will still be expected to achieve the applicable identified reductions within their portion of their jurisdictional area. Please refer to the MS4 TMDL Implementation Guidance for details; “TMDL Guidance for MS4 Permits: Planning, Implementation, and Modeling Guidance” effective October 20, 2014. The guidance and addendums can be found at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/standards/ms4_modeling.html Page 53 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin L-17 B-20 FIGURE 29A. LOCATION OF PERMITTED MS4 – LOWER BASIN Page 54 LOWER WI RIVER BASIN Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Y-8 / M-7 C-16 / P-2 C-18 / F-1 FIGURE 30B. LOCATION OF PERMITTED MS4 – CENTRAL BASIN CENTRAL WI RIVER BASIN Page 55 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 31C. LOCATION OF PERMITTED MS4 – UPPER BASIN Page 56 UPPER WI RIVER BASIN Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 2 . P E R M I T T E D M S 4 A R E A B Y T M D L S U B B A S I N . Municipality  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  Kronenwetter  Kronenwetter  Kronenwetter  Marathon County  Marshfield  Marshfield  Marshfield  Marshfield  Marshfield  Merrill  Merrill  Merrill  Mosinee  Mosinee  Mosinee  Portage  Rib Mountain  Rib Mountain  Rothschild  Rothschild  Schofield  Schofield  Stevens Point  Stevens Point  Stevens Point  Stevens Point  Stevens Point  Wausau  Wausau  Wausau  Wausau  Wausau  Wausau  Weston  Weston  Weston  Weston  TMDL Subbasin  5  137  179  230  234  81  153  263  NA  84  85  147  275  307  158  269  321  81  153  262  Area (acres)  546.6  390.9  2,671.7  119.3  2.6  41.1  1,061.2  2,412.5  NA  2,358.7  186.1  4,004.0  1,709.0  290.7  2,343.4  620.7  1,621.4  1,184.7  1,512.7  1,149.8  Figure  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Lower  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Central  Central  Central  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper Upper 190  154  263  154  263  578.7  2,311.8  127.8  820.5  3,246.0  Lower  Upper  Upper  Upper Upper 154  290  603.7  432.0  Upper Upper 145  148  149  210  260  154  156  265  290  291  292  153  154  155  263  234.4  1,466.4  1,359.4  4,310.0  1,904.9  4,114.1  3,792.9  608.8  687.8  1,321.4  690.7  19.4  2,367.5  3,135.7  934.2  Central  Central  Central  Central  Central  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Upper  Major Trib. Watershed  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  Baraboo  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  Little Eau Pleine  Little Eau Pleine  Mill  Yellow  Yellow  WI River Upper  Prairie  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Lower  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  Map ID  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  U‐18  U‐18  WI River Upper  Eau Claire  WI River Central  WI River Central  Plover  WI River Central  Plover  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  Eau Claire  Rib  Rib  WI River Upper  WI River Upper  Eau Claire  WI River Upper  U‐19   EC‐3  C ‐16  C ‐16  P‐2  C ‐16  P‐2  U‐20  U‐20  U‐20  EC‐4  R‐5  R‐5  U‐21  U‐21  EC‐5  U‐21  B‐20  B‐20 B‐20 B‐20 B‐20 U‐14  U‐14  U‐14  NA LEP-6 LEP-6 M‐7  Y‐8  Y‐8  U‐15  PR‐3  U‐15  U‐16  U‐16  U‐16  L‐17  U‐17  U‐17  Page 57 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Municipality  Weston  Weston  Wisconsin Rapids  Wisconsin Rapids  Wisconsin Rapids  Wisconsin Rapids  Wisconsin Rapids  Wisconsin Rapids  UW‐Stevens Point  TMDL Subbasin  289  290  144  204  205  206  256  257  210  Area (acres)  234.0  476.0  1,260.2  159.4  3,496.0  1,050.9  995.4  1,381.3  ND  Figure  Upper  Upper  Central  Central  Central  Central  Central  Central  Central  Major Trib. Watershed  Eau Claire  Eau Claire  WI River Central  WI River Central  WI River Central  WI River Central  WI River Central  Fourmile  WI River Central  Detailed maps of the permitted MS4 areas included in the TMDL are provided in Appendix G. Page 58 Map ID  EC‐5  EC‐5  C‐18  C‐18  C‐18  C‐18  C‐18  F‐1  C‐17  Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 4.3.2.4 CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are operations defined and regulated under the WPDES program. There are 18 regulated CAFOs in the Basin (Table 13 and Figure 33A - C). WPDES permits for these facilities require zero discharge of pollutants from the production area, unless caused by an extreme storm event (24-hour storm duration exceeding the 25-year recurrence interval). Baseline CAFO loads were set as zero, as discharges from the production area of the CAFO are prohibited. Manure from CAFO operations used for agronomic purposes in the watershed is considered a nonpoint source of phosphorus. Manure spreading loads are included implicitly in the SWAT model. TA B L E 1 3 . L I S T O F C A F O S ( U P D AT E D A S O F 2 / 2 1 0 8 ) TMDL  Reach  73  57      292  275      324  21  106      152  215  298  247    70    75  102  75  216  207  217  Major Tributary  Watershed  WI River Central  Lemonweir      Rib  Yellow      Big Eau Pleine  Baraboo  Rib      Big Eau Pleine  Rib  Eau Claire  WI River Lower    Yellow    Little Roche a Cri  Rib  Little Roche a Cri  Eau Claire  Mill  WI River Upper  Map  Number*  C‐19  LMN‐8      R‐6  Y‐9      BEP‐8  B‐21  R‐7      BEP‐9  R‐8  EC‐6  LW‐16    Y‐10    LR‐3  R‐9  LR‐4  EC‐7  M‐8  U‐23  Facility Name  Permit ID  Figure  Central Sands Dairy LLC  0063533  Central  Chapman Brothers Farms  0062774  Lower  DESTINY FARMS LLC  0064343    DIETSCHE DAIRY LLC  0059277    Double P Dairy LLC  0062031  Upper  Elusive Hill Dairy  0062022  Central  FISCHER CLARK DAIRY  0065625    GOLDEN SANDS DAIRY LLC  0064980    Heeg Farm  0061841  Upper  Hillsprairie Dairy/Mitchell F  0062634  Lower  Kingdom Haven Dairy  0062391  Upper  KINNAMON RIDGE DAIRY LLC  0065129    LYNN ENTERPRISES  0062413    Maple Ridge Dairy  0061832  Upper  Miltrim Dairy  0061638  Upper  Nagel Dairy Farm LLC  0063819  Upper  New Chester Dairy LLC  0064696  Lower  NIGHT HAWK DAIRY LLC  0065609    Norm‐E‐Lane  0059421  Central  O'HARROW'S FAMILY FARM LLC  0065846    BURR OAK HEIFERS LLC  0061824  Central  Rausch Family Farms  0062405  Upper  Richfield Dairy  0064815  Central  Spring Brook Farm LLC  0058777  Upper  Tri Star Dairy, Inc.  0062111  Central  Van Der Geest Dairy Cattle, Inc.  0059293  Upper    *map numbers correspond to point labels in Figure 33A – C. Facilities without map numbers or location information will be updated for final draft.       Page 59 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Seasonality Nonpoint source pollution loads are not evenly distributed over time. There are certain times of the year when TSS and TP yields can be 1–2 orders of magnitude greater than others (Figure 32 and Appendix D for observed and simulated loads over time at each calibration site). Agricultural non-point loads tend to be the lowest in winter months during snow cover. Runoff tends to be highest in early spring (usually beginning in March) when snow begins melting, and with runoff, simulated TSS and TP yields are greater. This pattern is particularly evident in March and April—for many dairy operations, the SWAT model simulates solid manure applications once monthly between January and April, and simulated TP yields tend to be the greatest when snow mixed with manure begins to melt. Summer months also yield higher TSS and TP than winter months due to more frequent rain events and greater precipitation overall, however plant cover and reduced fertilization result in less pollutant yield than in spring months. Simulated TP yields in October are slightly higher due to some agricultural operations in the model programmed to fertilize at that time. FIGURE 32. BOXPLOTS SHOWING THE TEMPORAL PATTERN OF POLLUTANT YIELDS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. EACH BOXPLOT REPRESENTS THE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE MONTHLY YIELDS ACROSS ALL YEARS IN THE WATERSHED MODEL SIMULATION PERIOD Page 60 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 33A. LOCATION OF CAFOS – LOWER BASIN LOWER WI RIVER BASIN Page 61 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 34B. LOCATION OF CAFOS– CENTRAL BASIN Page 62 CENTRAL WI RIVER BASIN Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 35C. LOCATION OF CAFOS– UPPER BASIN UPPER WI RIVER BASIN Page 63 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 5 POLLUTANT LOADING CAPACITY Pollutant loading capacity is defined as the amount of a pollutant that a water body can assimilate and still meet water quality standards. By definition, a TMDL is a daily loading capacity; however, loading capacities can also be calculated for time periods other than daily, if the effects of a pollutant manifest themselves over longer periods. This section describes how the pollutant loading capacities for river and stream reaches as well as the basin reservoirs were determined. Linking Pollutant Loading to Concentration Wisconsin’s stream/river total phosphorus criteria are expressed as growing-season (May-Oct) median (GSM) concentrations. Although the SWAT model was run with a daily time step, predicted daily TP concentrations are not as accurate as monthly or annual flow-weighted mean (FWM) values. To establish annual TP loads that will meet these criteria, a method is required to translate GSM TP concentrations to flow-weighted mean TP concentrations. FWM is higher than GSM in streams where TP concentration increases with discharge and where there is little seasonal variation. In contrast, GSM may be higher than FWM in streams where TP exhibits a strong seasonal pattern that peaks in summer and is independent of discharge. We assume that the FWM / GSM ratio for a given tributary will remain constant as TP concentrations change because the underlying hydrologic drivers of the ratio will not change very much. The FWM / GSM ratio for a tributary can be used to estimate the TP loading that will meet TP criteria – they do not change the criteria themselves. The FWM / GSM ratio was estimated for each tributary monitoring station from monitoring data. For each station, the FWM was calculated from measured daily flow and daily loads estimated by the Fluxmaster model (Appendix D, Section 4.2.1.1). GSMs were estimated from monitoring data adjusted to control for the influence of antecedent precipitation on TP concentration (WDNR PhosMER model). PhosMER was chosen to estimate GSM rather than Fluxmaster because WDNR intends to use it to assess future TP monitoring data where flow may not be monitored. Ratios for ungauged tributaries were either calculated from SWATderived FWM and PhosMER-derived GSM or from a nearby gauged tributary station with similar watershed characteristics (Figure 36). Subbasins that drain directly to the main stem Wisconsin River were assigned the ratio for the Wisconsin River at Merrill because ratios at all downstream stations were very similar. FWM / GSM ratios at tributary monitoring stations ranged from 0.86 (Little Eau Pleine River) to 2.44 (Freeman Creek) with a median of 1.27 (Table 14). The lowest ratios are in parts of the basin (including the main stem Wisconsin River) that contain many impoundments that likely dampen hydrologic response. The highest ratios are in parts of the basin with clay soils and flashy hydrology. Page 64 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin FIGURE 36. FLOW-WEIGHTED MEAN (FWM) TO GROWING SEASON MEDIAN (GSM) CONCENTRATION RATIOS Page 65 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin TA B L E 1 4 . W I S C O N S I N R I V E R T R I B U T A RY M O N I T O R I N G S T AT I O N S U S E D T O C O N V E R T F R O M A N N U A L F L OW- W E I G H T E D M E A N ( F W M ) T O GROW ING-SEASON MEDIAN (GSM) T P C O N CE NT RATI O N ( S O RT E D B Y F W M / G S M R AT I O ) . Subbasin 150 Station ID Station Name FWM GSM 10031106 Little Eau Pleine River at Smokey Hill Rd 0.248 0.290 FWM / GSM 0.86 140 723128 Yellow River at Sth 54 0.212 0.244 0.87 329 373375 Johnson Creek at Cth C 0.055 0.059 0.92 158 353068 Wisconsin River - Below Merrill Dam 0.060 0.062 0.96 199 10031103 Yellow River downstream STH 21 0.114 0.115 0.99 142 10012667 Tenmile Creek at Rangeline Rd 0.053 0.049 1.09 141 10030199 Big Roche a Cri Creek at STH 21 0.033 0.028 1.18 195 293156 Lemonweir River at New Lisbon 0.147 0.120 1.22 137 573051 Baraboo River at CTH X 0.231 0.182 1.27 0.126 0.099 1.27 3 10029202 Duck Creek at Duck Creek Road 152 373325 Big Eau Pleine River at Sth 97 0.361 0.275 1.31 326 373366 Fenwood Creek at Hwy 153 0.162 0.117 1.38 149 503130 Plover River - Hwy 10 0.042 0.029 1.43 78 10012666 Mill Creek at CTH PP bridge 0.262 0.178 1.48 157 10018128 Big Rib River - Access 0.131 0.073 1.80 238 10011031 Lodi-Spring Creek at Cty J 0.139 0.076 1.84 155 373183 Eau Claire River at Ross Ave At Kelly 0.098 0.052 1.87 268 353109 Pine River at Center Rd 0.069 0.034 2.05 151 373411 Freeman Creek at Sugar Bush Rd 0.150 0.061 2.44 Critical Conditions Wisconsin’s phosphorus criteria are assessed during the growing season (May-Oct) in streams and the summer (Jun-Sep) in lakes. These periods may be considered critical conditions because it is when the biological response to phosphorus is strongest. While stream flow varies within these assessment periods, the FWM/GSM conversion described in Section 5.1 provides an estimate of the long-term load that will meet criteria. Rivers and Streams Phosphorus loading capacity was calculated for headwater stream reaches as Qmean · TPcrit / (FWM/GSM), where Qmean is the mean annual flow, TPcrit is the total phosphorus criterion (75 µg/L for headwater streams), and FWM/GSM is the conversion factor described in Section 5.1. Phosphorus loading capacity was calculated Page 66 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin for non-headwater stream reaches using the headwater equation and then subtracting the loading capacity of all upstream reaches. Loading capacities for each stream reach are reported in Appendix J using the current criteria and Appendix K using the proposed SSC for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. Phosphorus loading capacity for each impaired lake and reservoir was calculated with one of two models described in detail in Appendix H and Appendix I. Phosphorus loading capacity for Castle Rock and Petenwell Reservoirs was calculated with a custom model based on a paper by Jensen et al. (2006). The Jensen model is an empirical mass balance model that uses daily inflows of water and TP and reservoir water temperature as inputs. The change in TP concentration in the reservoir is modeled as a difference between input and output, the sedimentation of TP is deducted, and the release of TP from the sediment is added. Separate Jensen models were developed for Petenwell Reservoir, the main body of Castle Rock Reservoir, and the Yellow River arm of Castle Rock Reservoir. The models simulate daily TP concentrations over the 2010-2013 monitoring period. Once calibrated (see Appendix H for details), the TP loading capacity for each reservoir (Table 15) was calculated by reducing the inflow TP concentration by a fixed percentage on every day of the year until the summer (June-Sept) mean TP concentration met the criterion (40 µg/L). Loading capacity for Big Eau Pleine Reservoir, Lake DuBay, and Lake Wisconsin was calculated with the BATHTUB model (Walker, 1999). Like the Jensen model, BATHTUB is an empirical mass balance model that uses inflows of water and P as inputs. Unlike the Jensen model, BATHTUB uses average annual inputs and therefore estimates steady state reservoir conditions. Separate BATHTUB models were developed for each water body and are described in detail in the reports in Appendix I. The TP loading capacity for each water body was calculated by reducing the annual TP load until the predicted summer TP concentration met applicable criterion (Table 15). TA B L E 1 5 . S U M M A RY O F C U R R E N T L O A D I N G A N D L O A D I N G C A PAC I T Y F O R T O T A L P H O S P H O R U S I N W I S C O N S I N R I V E R B A S I N I M PA I R E D L A K E S AND RESERVOIRS. Current Conditions (2010-13) Water Body Petenwell Reservoir Castle Rock Reservoir (Main Body) Castle Rock Reservoir (Yellow River Arm) Big Eau Pleine Reservoir Inflow TP load (t/yr) Outflow TP load (t/yr) TP Retention Summer TP conc (µg/L) TP criterion (µg/L) Inflow TP load (t/yr) to meet TP Criteria10 428 319 25% 109 40 158 (-63%) 79 40 167 (-49%) 101 40 23 (-60%) 329 346 11% 59 95 35 64% 123 30 15 (-84%) Lake DuBay 344 303 12% 90 100 NA Lake Wisconsin 640 632 1.3% 97 100 NA Lake Redstone 3.9 1.5 64% 57 30 1.3 (-67%) Percent reductions in this table are from the average current load, which is different from reductions from baseline, which is how reductions are expressed in the allocation tables. 10 Page 67 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Minocqua Lake 1.4 1.0 33% 17 15 1.1 (-17%) Kawaguesaga Lake 1.2 1.2 0% 18 15 1.0 (-15%) Site-Specific Criteria and Load Capacity Analysis The loading capacity for the Wisconsin River Basin has been calculated under two scenarios, one based on the current promulgated criteria and a second under a SSC scenario. The SSC scenario is based on the proposed SSC for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. The current default criteria and the proposed SSC are listed in Table 5. The calculation for the loading capacity under the proposed SSC followed the same process outlined above. In both scenarios, load capacity was calculated for headwater stream reaches, and non-headwater stream reaches, and the lakes and reservoirs. The only difference in the calculations was the loading capacity under the SSC analysis utilized the proposed SSC target concentrations in calculating the loading capacity. Page 68 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 6 POLLUTANT LOAD ALLOCATIONS The objective of a TMDL is to allocate loads among pollutant sources so that appropriate control measures can be implemented and water quality standards achieved. Wasteload allocations (WLAs) are assigned to point source discharges regulated by WPDES permits and nonpoint source loads are assigned load allocations (LAs), which include both anthropogenic and natural background sources of a given pollutant. The load allocation is the portion of the waterbody’s total loading capacity attributed to existing and future nonpoint sources, including natural background sources. The wasteload allocation is the portion of the waterbody’s total loading capacity that is allocated to point sources (for example, municipal or industrial wastewater facilities). TMDLs must also include a margin of safety (MOS) to account for the uncertainty in predicting how well pollutant reduction will result in meeting water quality standards, and account for seasonal variations. A reserve load capacity (RC) may be included in a TMDL to account for future discharges, changes in discharges, and other sources not defined through the TMDL study. This TMDL includes two sets of pollutant load allocations, one based on the current promulgated criteria and a second under the proposed SSC for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. The current criteria and the proposed SSC are listed in Table 5. Both sets of allocations are set to meet the loading capacity under each of the two scenarios. The process used in the allocation process is the same under both scenarios; just the loading capacities changed for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. The proposed process for implementing the allocations, specifically the wasteload allocations associated with WPDES permits, is discussed in Section 7.6; however, it is important to note that until the proposed SSC are adopted by rule and approved by USEPA only the allocations in Appendix J can be implemented in WPDES permits. TMDL Equation A TMDL is expressed as the sum of all individual WLAs for point source loads, LAs for nonpoint source loads, and an appropriate MOS, which takes into account uncertainty. TMDL  WLA   LA  MOS  RC ΣWLA is the sum of wasteload allocations (point sources), ΣLA is the sum of load allocations (nonpoint sources), MOS is the margin of safety, and RC is the reserve capacity. Load Allocation Approach Load and wasteload allocations were developed for the following source types: Load allocations:  Background sources (woodland, wetland, and natural areas)  Agricultural sources  Wasteload allocations:  Individual WPDES permittees (WW, MS4, CAFO)  General WPDES permittees (WW, stormwater, CAFO) Non-permitted urban areas (NPUs) The phosphorus load allocation approach involves several steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. Determining baseline loadings from all sources Reductions needed to meet local water quality criteria Reserve capacity allocation Reductions needed to meet downstream reservoir criteria Page 69 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 5. Checking final point source concentrations and adjusting, if needed The specifics of determining the baseline loadings for each source type are described in the following sections. Allocations for background and general permits were set equal to each of their baseline loads. Before allocating loads to other source types, the background load and a load assigned to general permits were subtracted from the total allowable reach load to set aside the loads that cannot be reduced further; the remaining load is considered “controllable”. The allocation process depends on whether the baseline reach load is greater than or less than the allowable reach load and whether the reach contains a reservoir with a criterion that is different than the incoming reach criterion. Each case is presented below. Case 1: Reach baseline load above reach allowable load Using the reach allowable load, the background and general permit loads are first subtracted. The reserve capacity is set to 5% of the remaining controllable load. If a downstream reservoir requires additional reductions, the reserve capacity and the remaining source loads are reduced proportionally by the necessary amount resulting in the reserve capacity remaining 5% of the final controllable load. FIGURE 37. DIAGRAM OF ALLOCATION APPROACH WHEN REACH BASELINE LOAD IS ABOVE REACH ALLOWABLE LOAD (EXAMPLE, NOT TO SCALE). Case 2: Reach baseline load below reach allowable load Since the baseline reach load is less than the reach allowable load, no load reductions are required to meet local water quality criteria. The reserve capacity is set to 5% of the reach controllable load (point source, MS4, NPS, NPU, & RC) and added to the baseline reach load. If a downstream reservoir requires reductions, the reserve capacity and the remaining source loads are reduced proportionally by the necessary amount resulting in the reserve capacity remaining 5% of the final controllable load. Page 70 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin BKG GP BASELINE REACH LOAD PS+MS4+NPS+NPU BKG GP REACH LOADING CAPACITY PS+MS4+NPS+NPU RC TMDL LOAD FOR RESERVOIR GP PS+MS4+NPS+NPU RC BKG FIGURE 38. DIAGRAM OF ALLOCATION APPROACH WHEN REACH BASELINE LOAD IS BELOW REACH ALLOWABLE LOAD (EXAMPLE, NOT TO SCALE). Case 3: Reach contains reservoir Reductions from the baseline reach load for subbasins containing reservoirs are made to the controllable load as necessary. The reserve capacity is then set at 5% of the reduced controllable load and subtracted from the remaining controllable load. BKG BASELINE REACH LOAD GP TMDL LOAD FOR RESERVOIR BKG GP RC PS+MS4+NPS+NPU PS+MS4+NPS+NPU FIGURE 39. DIAGRAM OF ALLOCATION APPROACH FOR REACH WITH A RESERVOIR (EXAMPLE, NOT TO SCALE). In general, loads are reduced by reach from upstream to downstream based on the local reach allowable load. At the reservoirs, the incoming load is calculated and compared to the allowable reservoir load, determined from modeling as described in Section 5.4. The difference is the amount of reduction that needs to come from all upstream subbasins. In an iterative process, the controllable load of each upstream reach is incrementally reduced until the total required amount of reduction to the reservoir is achieved. Reaches with reductions for local criteria that exceed the percent reduction for the downstream reservoir are not further reduced. In reservoir reaches, a fraction of the inflowing pollutant load may be retained. The fraction of pollutant that is retained was estimated from the BATHTUB and Jensen reservoir models (see Section 5.4), and is assumed to remain constant as the inflowing load is reduced. The reach calculations then continue downstream to the outlet of the basin. The fraction of the controllable load that is allocated to each source category is equal to its fraction of the baseline load as calculated over the 12-year model simulation period. These fractions were calculated separately for each reach. This method assigns responsibility for attaining water quality targets in proportion to each source’s current contribution to the excess load. A final check is done to determine if any of the permitted wastewater facilities have received an allocation that puts their effluent concentration below the local water quality criterion. If their reductions are due to downstream reservoirs, the following applies: If the facility’s baseline concentration is greater than the local criterion and the initial TMDL concentration is less than the local criterion, the load is recalculated so the final TMDL concentration is equal to the local reach criterion. If the facility’s baseline concentration is less than the local criterion and the initial TMDL concentration Page 71 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin is less than the baseline concentration, the load is recalculated so the final TMDL concentration equal to their baseline concentration. The resulting differences in load reductions are then subtracted from all other reaches upstream of the same reservoir. Allocations are then rebalanced so that reserve capacity is 5% of the allocable controllable load and each source’s allocation is proportional to its baseline contribution. Allocations must not exceed established permits and regulations. CAFO wasteload allocations are set to zero as discharges from CAFO production areas are not permitted up to the 24-hour, 25-year storm event, as consistent with WPDES permits. Land spreading loads associated with CAFO operations are included in the nonpoint source loads and are subject to any needed reductions associated with meeting the load allocation. Allocations were calculated separately for each source or source type in each TMDL reach on an annual basis. The phosphorus allocations by reach and source type are presented in Appendix J. Baseline loads were presented in Appendix F. To address the possibility of SSCs being developed for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, allocations were also calculated based on the SSC allowable loads and are shown in Appendix K. Load Allocations 6.3.1 Background Sources Baseline background loads (forest, grassland, and wetlands,) were determined from the SWAT model results. Allocations for background sources are equal to the baseline background load for that TMDL reach (no load reduction from baseline). 6.3.2 Agricultural Sources Baseline agricultural phosphorus loads were calculated from the crop land cover areas including dairy, cash grain and potato and vegetable rotations in the SWAT model. Agricultural sources received allocations proportional to their contribution to the total controllable baseline phosphorus load for each reach over the 12-year model period. Total annual phosphorus load allocations for agricultural sources can be found in Table J-1 of Appendix J. Total annual phosphorus load allocations for agricultural sources based on the proposed SSCs for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, are shown in Table K-1 of Appendix K. The load allocations are also presented based on the percent reduction from baseline in Tables J-4 and K-4. The percent reduction is expressed in three ways; as the percent reduction needed to protect local water quality, the percent reduction necessary to meet downstream water quality criteria such as those for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, and the total percent reduction. The total percent reduction represents what is needed to meet both local and downstream water quality criteria. 6.3.3 Non-permitted Urban Sources Baseline phosphorus loads for non-permitted urban areas were calculated from the non-background and nonagricultural land covers outside of a permitted MS4 municipal boundary as determined both in SWAT and in WinSLAMM. Non-permitted urban sources received allocations proportional to their contribution to the total controllable baseline load for each reach over the 12-year model period. Total annual phosphorus load allocations for non-permitted urban areas can be found in Table J-1 of Appendix J. Total annual phosphorus load allocations for non-permitted urban areas based on the proposed SSCs for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, are shown in Table K-1 of Appendix K. Page 72 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin The load allocations are also presented based on the percent reduction from baseline in Tables J-4 and K-4. The percent reduction is expressed in three ways; as the percent reduction needed to protect local water quality, the percent reduction necessary to meet downstream water quality criteria such as those for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, and the total percent reduction. The total percent reduction represents what is needed to meet both local and downstream water quality criteria. Wasteload Allocation 6.4.1 Permitted Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Discharges The phosphorus baseline loads for municipal and industrial wastewater discharges covered by an individual WPDES permit with specified limits were based on the concentration limit and design flow (annual average design flow for POTWs; highest average annual flow over five years (2012-2016) for industrial dischargers). If a permitted limit did not exist, measured data from the facility was used in place of the concentration limit to determine the baseline concentration and load. To be representative of the ch. NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, technology-based effluent limit (TBEL) for phosphorus, all wastewater point source baseline TP loads were set to an effluent concentration limit of 1.0 mg/L unless the individual permittee’s TBEL was less than 1.0 mg/L, in which case the lower TP permitted effluent limit was used. Individually permitted wastewater dischargers received allocations proportional to their contribution to the total controllable baseline load for each reach over the 12-year model period. The WLA contained in this TMDL will be expressed in permits as a mass limit. In many cases, discharges will also receive a concentration limit for P, based on the TBEL requirements in ch. NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code. Section 40 CFR 122.45 (d), s. NR 212.76 (4), and s. NR 205.065 (7), Wis. Adm. Code, specifies that unless impracticable, permit effluent limits must be expressed as weekly and monthly averages for publicly owned treatment works and as daily maximums and monthly averages for all other continuous discharges. A continuous discharge is a discharge which occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility, except for infrequent shutdowns for maintenance, process changes, or other similar activities (s. 40 CFR 122.2). The Department has demonstrated the impracticability of expressing WQBELs for TP as specified in 40 CFR 122.45 (d). The impracticability demonstration indicates that WQBELs for TP shall be expressed as a monthly average, if the TP WQBEL is equivalent to a concentration value greater than 0.3 mg/l, and as a six-month average and a monthly average limit of 3 times the six-month average, if the TP WQBEL is equivalent to a concentration value less than 0.3 mg/l. For non-continuous discharges, methods for converting WLAs into permit limits should be determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, some discharges do not occur continuously and often vary from year to year, depending on weather conditions or production processes. In these cases, it may be appropriate to express limits by season or as a total annual amount. In many cases, using shorter term limits (daily, monthly) might have the effect of unduly limiting operational flexibility and, since TMDLs are required to be protective of critical conditions, a seasonal or annual limit would be consistent with the TMDL and protective of water quality. Annual total phosphorus wasteload allocations by permitted point source are shown in Table J-2 in Appendix J. Wasteload allocations set to address the proposed SSCs for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, are shown in Table K-2 of Appendix K. Tables J-2 and K-2 both present wasteload allocations broken out by the total wasteload allocation for the facility, the wasteload allocation assigned to the facility needed to meet local water quality in the reach the facility discharges into, and the wasteload allocation required to meet downstream water quality in Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. DNR has broken out the Page 73 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin allocations in this manner to help facilitate water quality trading, since the geographic extent in which trades can occur is based on the point of standards application as outlined in the “Guidance for Implementing Water Quality Trading in WPDES Permits”, 08/21/2013. A copy of the guidance can be found at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/documents/WQT_guidance_Aug_21_2013signed.pdf or by searching for “water quality trading” at http://dnr.wi.gov/ . 6.4.2 General Permits Wasteload allocations for general permittees located within an MS4 boundary were included in the MS4 WLA. WLAs for general permittees located outside of MS4 areas were allocated as 10% of the nonpermitted urban baseline load for TP. This general permit load was set aside from the loading capacity with no reduction. 6.4.3 Permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems As described in Section 4.3.2.3, there are 15 permitted MS4s within the basin that will receive wasteload allocations under this TMDL project. Baseline MS4 TP and TSS loads were determined from the WinSLAMM modeling described in Section 4.2.1.2 and detailed in Appendix D. The WinSLAMM results used in the existing conditions SWAT model were adjusted for baseline conditions to reflect the 20% TSS reduction requirement and corresponding 15% reduction in TP. Because of the large spatial expanse of the Wisconsin River Basin, each modeled MS4 area utilized a different rainfall file to best represent local conditions. Therefore unique monthly flows and loads were generated for each MS4 to determine baseline conditions. There may be MS4s in the basin that have already implemented practices that achieve an annual average TSS reductions of greater than 20% or TP reduction of greater than 15%. While these individual modeled results have not been included in the TMDL analysis, these above-baseline condition reductions will be credited towards meeting water quality targets established in the WPDES permits regulating these municipalities. MS4 permittees received allocations proportional to their contribution to the total baseline load for each TMDL reach to which they discharge. Marathon County and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point are both covered by a WPDES MS4 permit but will not receive individual allocations. Instead, they are accounted for in the portions of each city, village, or town MS4 that they discharge to or lie within; however, these regulated MS4s that are not given specific allocations will still be expected to achieve the applicable identified reductions within their portion of their jurisdictional area. The permitted area is determined by the US Census Bureau’s mapped Urbanized Area, adjacent developed areas, or areas that are connected or will connect to other municipal separate storm sewer systems regulated under subch. I of NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code. Stormwater discharge from Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) land areas are not currently covered by a WPDES permit; however, a WPDES permit is being developed. This permit, referred to as the TS4 permit, along with the conditions of a memorandum of understanding with WDNR will be used to implement the TMDL requirements for WisDOT discharges. A section of the MS4 permit is dedicated to the implementation of the TMDL requiring WisDOT to comply with the TMDL allocation set forth in this TMDL. The specific TS4 allocation is considered to be included in the allocation for each MS4 with WisDOT area. At the time the watershed modeling was conducted for this TMDL, sufficient detail did not exist to partition out the TS4 allocation and assign an explicit allocation. Please refer to the MS4 TMDL Implementation Guidance for details on how to partition the allocation; “TMDL Guidance for MS4 Permits: Planning, Implementation, and Page 74 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Modeling Guidance” effective October 20, 2014. The guidance and addendums can be found at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/standards/ms4_modeling.html Annual total phosphorus wasteload allocations by MS4 and reach are shown in Table J-3 in Appendix J. Total annual phosphorus wasteload allocations by MS4 and reach based on the proposed SSCs for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, are shown in Table K-3 of Appendix K. The percent reduction from baseline that would apply to each MS4 are broken out by reach in Tables J-4 and K-4 . The percent reduction is expressed in three ways; as the percent reduction needed to protect local water quality, the percent reduction necessary to meet downstream water quality criteria such as those for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin, and the total percent reduction. The total percent reduction represents what is needed to meet both local and downstream water quality criteria. Guidance related to applying the percent reduction to determine compliance with the TMDL can be found in the MS4 TMDL Implementation Guidance: “TMDL Guidance for MS4 Permits: Planning, Implementation, and Modeling Guidance” effective October 20, 2014. The guidance and addendums can be found at: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/standards/ms4_modeling.html 6.4.4 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Baseline CAFO loads were set to zero as discharges from CAFO production areas are not permitted, as consistent with WPDES permits. Likewise, CAFOs received a wasteload allocation of zero. Land spreading loads associated with CAFO operations are included in the nonpoint source allocations. Margin of Safety A margin of safety (MOS) is included in the TMDL to account for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between load and wasteload allocations and water quality. The MOS can be implicit through the use of conservative assumptions in the analysis or explicit by allocating a portion of the loading directly to a MOS. The MOS in this TMDL is implicit, and is based on one conservative assumptions and one aspect of the allocation process. First, the fraction of the TP load from background (forest and wetland) sources may be over-estimated. The TP concentration assigned to groundwater in the SWAT model is really an estimate of background stream TP (Robertson et al. 2006). An unknown fraction of background stream TP is derived from land surface processes, so assigning this concentration entirely to groundwater means that background TP loads are likely overestimated. Therefore, if controllable TP loads are reduced by their allocated amounts, the net TP load may be lower than needed to meet TP criteria. Second, the loading capacity of Petenwell and Castle Rock Reservoirs requires load reductions from most tributaries beyond what is needed to meet local stream criteria. The gap between these two levels of loading capacity is an MOS for tributary water quality. Reserve Capacity A reserve capacity (RC) was included in the TMDL allocations to account for future discharges, changes in current discharger loading, and other sources not defined through TMDL development. Reserve capacity is intended to provide wasteload allocation for new or expanding industrial or municipal WPDES individual permit holders. RC may be applied to general permittees if it is determined, through analysis of discharge monitoring data, that the amount set aside for GPs is not enough to cover the actual discharge amount. The reserve capacity is not intended to be applied to MS4s. For TP, the natural background load and general permitted baseline loads were subtracted from the total allowable load for each TMDL reach, and then the RC was set as 5% of the remaining controllable load. Page 75 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Baseline loads from municipal wastewater treatment plants were calculated using the design flow of the facility, which is based on a 20-year design life; therefore, the allocations for these point sources should account for future growth in many communities. If a municipality or industry wishes to commence a new discharge or expand an existing discharge of a pollutant covered by the TMDL and within the area covered by the TMDL, the permittee must submit a written notice of interest along with a demonstration of need to WDNR. Interested dischargers will not be given a portion of the reserve capacity unless they can demonstrate a need for a new or increased wasteload allocation. Examples of point sources in need of WLA would include those that are a new discharge or those that are significantly expanding their current discharge and would be unable to meet current WLAs despite optimal operation and maintenance of their treatment facility. WDNR will use the information provided by the permittee to determine if reserve capacity is available and then issue, reissue, or modify a WPDES permit to implement a new WLA based on application of reserve capacity. The new WLA will be used as the basis for effluent limits in the WPDES permit. EPA will be notified if a new or expanded WLA is developed. Pursuant to s. 40 CFR 122.41(g) and s. NR 205.07(1)(c), Wis. Adm. Code, a WPDES permit does not convey any property rights of any sort nor any exclusive privilege. All proposed reserve capacity assignments are subject to WDNR review and approval and must be consistent with applicable regulations. Reserve capacity decisions and related permit determinations are subject to public notice and participation procedures as well as opportunities for challenge at the time of permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or reissuance under chapter 283, Wis. Stats. Seasonal Variation The method for linking TP criteria to loading capacity is based on their existing relationship and the assumption that the frequency distribution and seasonal pattern of a reduced TP load will be similar to the existing one. For non-point sources, this means that changes in land management will need to be effective throughout the year. While this may not be true for any single practice, it is anticipated that a broad suite of practices will be used, and that the collective effects of these practices at the watershed scale will meet this assumption. Discharges from point sources have much less seasonal variation, and it is expected that any required reductions will be approximately uniformly distributed seasonally. Page 76 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 7 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Planning The next step following approval of the TMDL is to develop an implementation plan that specifically describes how the TMDL goals can be achieved, over time. Wisconsin DNR has initiated an implementation planning process, which builds on past planning and implementation of practices to control or reduce nutrient and sediment pollutants in the Wisconsin River Basin. The implementation planning process will develop strategies to most effectively utilize existing federal, state, and county-based programs to achieve wasteload and load allocations outlined in the TMDL. The plan will build upon recommendations made in recent planning efforts, which are discussed in more detail below. Details of the implementation plan will include project goals, actions, costs, timelines, reporting requirements, and evaluation criteria. Required by the Clean Water Act, reasonable assurances provide a level of confidence that the wasteload allocations and load allocations in TMDLs will be implemented. This TMDL will be implemented through enforcement of existing regulations, financial incentives, and various local, state, and federal water pollution control programs. The following subsections describe some of the activities, programs, requirements, and institutional arrangements that will provide reasonable assurance that this TMDL will be implemented and that the water quality goals will be achieved. Reasonable Assurances for Point Sources. WDNR regulates point sources through the WPDES permit program. Individual permits are issued to municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. General permits are issued to some classes of industries or activities that are similar in nature, such as non-contact cooling water and certain stormwater discharges. Once the TMDL WLAs have been state and federally approved, reissued permits must contain conditions consistent with the wasteload allocations. Individual permits issued to municipal and industrial wastewater discharges will include discharge limits consistent with the approved wasteload allocations. Dischargers with general WPDES permits will be evaluated to determine if additional requirements are necessary to ensure that discharges remain consistent with TMDL goals. This could include issuing individual WPDES permits to facilities that currently hold general permits. WDNR regulates storm water discharges from certain MS4s, industries, and construction sites under WPDES permits issued pursuant to ch. NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code. WDNR also established developed urban area, construction site, and post-construction performance standards under NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code, which are implemented through storm water MS4 and construction site permits. Once the TMDL WLAs have been state and federally approved, WDNR will incorporate permit conditions into stormwater permits consistent with the TMDL WLAs. Existing programs that detect and eliminate illicit discharges will continue to be implemented by municipalities. WPDES permit conditions already require monitoring and elimination of discovered discharges. WDNR will monitor and enforce CAFO permit requirements so that CAFOs are operated and maintained to prevent discharges as required by their WPDES permit. Reasonable Assurances for Nonpoint Sources To attain the TMDL reduction goals, management measures must be implemented and maintained over time to control phosphorus and sediment loadings from nonpoint sources of pollution. Wisconsin’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program (NPS Program), described in the state’s Nonpoint Source Program Management Plan (WDNR, 2015), outlines a variety of financial, technical, educational, and enforcement programs, which support implementation of management measures to address nonpoint source pollution. WDNR and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) coordinate statewide Page 77 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin implementation of the NPS Program. The NPS Program includes core activities and programs, which are a high priority and the focus of WDNR and DATCP’s efforts to address NPS pollution; these programs include those described in the following sections. 7.3.1 Statewide Agricultural Performance Standards & Manure Management Prohibitions WDNR is a leader in the development of regulatory authority to prevent and control nonpoint source pollution. Chapter NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code, establishes runoff management performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural and non-agricultural facilities and practices. These standards are intended to be minimum standards of performance necessary to achieve water quality standards, as described in Chapter 281.16. Implementing the performance standards and prohibitions on a statewide basis is a high priority for the NPS Program and requires having adequate WDNR staff and financial resources in order to meet the NR 151 implementation and enforcement procedures (NR 151.09 and 151.095). In particular, the implementation and enforcement of agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions, listed below, throughout the TMDL area will be critical to achieve the necessary nonpoint source load reductions. Such effort will require having adequate amounts of cost share funding to cover the cost for meeting TMDL NPS reductions.         Tillage setback: A setback of 5 feet from the top of a channel of a waterbody for the purpose of maintaining stream bank integrity and avoiding soil deposits into state waters. Tillage setbacks greater than 5 feet but no more than 20 feet may be required if necessary to meet the standard. Harvesting of self-sustaining vegetation within the tillage setback is allowed. Phosphorus Index (PI): A limit on the amount of phosphorus that may run off croplands and pastures as measured by a phosphorus index with a maximum of 6, averaged over an eight-year accounting period, and a PI cap of 12 for any individual year. Process wastewater handling: a prohibition against significant discharge of process wastewater from milk houses, feedlots, and other similar sources. Meeting TMDLs: A standard that requires crop and livestock producers to reduce discharges if necessary to meet a load allocation specified in an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) by implementing targeted performance standards specified for the TMDL area using best management practices specified in ch. ATCP 50, Wis. Adm. Code. If a more stringent or additional performance standard is necessary to meet water quality standards, it must be promulgated by rule before compliance is required. Before promulgating targeted performance standards to implement a TMDL, the department must determine, using modeling or monitoring, that a specific waterbody or area will not attain water quality standards or groundwater standards after substantial implementation of the existing NR 151 performance standards and prohibitions. Sheet, rill and wind erosion: All cropped fields shall meet the tolerable (T) soil erosion rate established for that soil. This provision also applies to pastures. Manure storage facilities: All new, substantially altered, or abandoned manure storage facilities shall be constructed, maintained or abandoned in accordance with accepted standards, which includes a margin of safety. Failing and leaking existing facilities posing an imminent threat to public health or fish and aquatic life or violate groundwater standards shall be upgraded or replaced. Clean water diversions: Runoff from agricultural buildings and fields shall be diverted away from contacting feedlots, manure storage areas and barnyards located within water quality management areas (300 feet from a stream or 1,000 feet from a lake or areas susceptible to groundwater contamination). Nutrient management: Agricultural operations applying nutrients to agricultural fields shall do so according to a nutrient management plan (Each nutrient management plan must be designed to limit or Page 78 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin  reduce the discharge of nutrients to waters of the state for the purpose of complying with state water quality standards and groundwater standards. In addition, for croplands in watersheds that contain impaired surface waters, a plan must be designed to manage soil nutrient concentrations so as to maintain or reduce delivery of nutrients contributing to the impairment of impaired surface waters. ATCP 50.04 c additional requirements for all nutrient management plans. This standard does not apply to applications of industrial waste, municipal sludge or septage regulated under other DNR programs provided the material is not commingled with manure prior to application. Manure management prohibitions: o no overflow of manure storage facilities o no unconfined manure piles in a water quality management area o no direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure into state waters o no unlimited livestock access to waters of the state in locations where high concentrations of animals prevent the maintenance of adequate or self-sustaining sod cover WDNR, DATCP, and the county Land Conservation Departments (LCDs) will work with landowners to implement agricultural and non-agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions to address sediment and nutrient loadings in the TMDL area. Some landowners voluntarily install BMPs to help improve water quality and comply with the performance standards. Cost-sharing funds, provided via state or federal funds, may or may not be available for many of these BMPs. Wisconsin statutes, and the NR 151 implementation and enforcement procedures of NR 151.09 and 151.095, require that farmers must be offered at least 70% cost-sharing funds for BMP installation before they can be required to comply with the agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. If costshare money is offered, those in violation of the standards are obligated to comply with the rule. The amount of cost sharing funds available for use by LCD’s, DATCP and WDNR will require implementing the performance standards and prohibitions throughout the TMDL area over time. DATCP’s Farmland Preservation Program requires that any agricultural land enrolled in the program must be determined to be in compliance with the performance standards by no later than 2020 to continue receive tax credits associated with the program. 7.3.2 County Agricultural Performance Standards & Manure Management Prohibitions Marathon County - the county with some of the highest TP yielding lands and tributary streams in the Wisconsin River Basin upstream of Castle Rock and Petenwell Reservoirs - has an ordinance that regulates both manure storage facilities and the spreading of the manure and wastes from these facilities, via adoption of a nutrient management plan. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate the location, construction, installation, alteration, design, operation, maintenance, closure, and the application of waste from all waste storage facilities. This is to prevent water pollution and thereby prevent the spread of disease; to further the appropriate use and conservation of land and water resources for its communities; and promote the prosperity, aesthetics and general welfare of the citizens of the County. In 2015 Marathon County adopted modifications to these policies with a specific focus on addressing agricultural runoff problems. The 2015 modifications included citation authority and penalties to enforce code violations, increased attention to “operation and maintenance” plans, spills reporting, and nutrient management planning. 7.3.3 WDNR Cost-Sharing Grant Programs The counties and other local units of government in the TMDL area may apply for grants from WDNR to control NPS pollution and, over time, meet the TMDL load allocation. The WDNR supports NPS pollution Page 79 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin abatement by administering and providing cost-sharing grants to fund BMPs through various grant programs, including, but not limited to:       The Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant Program The Notice of Discharge (NOD) Grant Program The Urban Nonpoint Source & Storm Water Management Grant Program The Lake Planning Grant Program The Lake Protection Grant Program The River Planning & Protection Grant Program Many of the counties and municipalities in the TMDL area have a track record of participating in these NPSrelated grant programs. 7.3.4 Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant Program 7.3.4.1 TRM GRANT PROGRAM OVEWVIEW Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) grants are provided by the WDNR to control nonpoint source pollution from both urban and agricultural sites. A combination of state General Purpose Revenue, state Bond Revenue, and federal Section 319 Grant funds is used to support TRM grants. The grants are available to local units of government (typically counties) and targeted at high-priority resource problems. TRM grants can fund the design and construction of agricultural and urban BMPs. Some examples of eligible BMPs include livestock waste management practices, some cropland protection, and streambank protection projects. These and other practices eligible for funding are listed in s. NR 154.04, Wis. Adm. Code. Revisions to ch. NR 153, Wis. Adm. Code, (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code/nr/nr153.pdf) which governs the program, took effect on January 1, 2011, and modified the grant criteria and procedures, increasing the state’s ability to support performance standards implementation and TMDL implementation. Since the calendar year 2012 grant cycle, projects may be awarded in four categories: Small Scale   TMDL Implements a TMDL Agricultural or urban focus Large Scale   Implements a TMDL Agricultural focus only   Non-TMDL Implements NR 151 performance standards Agricultural or urban focus   Implements NR 151 performance standards Agricultural focus only Section 281.65(4c), Wis. Stats., defines additional priorities for Targeted Runoff Management Projects as follows:  TRM projects must be targeted to an area based on any of the following: o Need for compliance with established performance standards. o Existence of impaired waters. o Existence of outstanding or exceptional resource waters. o Existence of threats to public health. o Existence of an animal feeding operation receiving a Notice of Discharge. Page 80 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin o Other water quality concerns of national or statewide importance.  Projects are consistent with priorities identified by WDNR on a watershed or other geographic basis.  Projects are consistent with approved county land and water resource management plans. The maximum cost-share rate available to TRM grant recipients is up to 70 percent of eligible costs (maximum of 90% in cases of economic hardship), with the total of state funding not to exceed established grant caps. TRM grants may not be used to fund projects to control pollution regulated under Wisconsin law as a point source. Grant application materials are available on the WDNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/aid/targetedrunoff.html. 7.3.4.2 TRM GRANT PROJECTS IN THE TMDL PROJECT AREA Since 2005, 29 TRM grants have funded the construction and implementation of agricultural best management in the TMDL project area. Over $3.7 million dollars in TRM grant awards have gone towards funding over $5.3 million in agricultural management practices, including construction of manure facilities storage, barnyard runoff control practices and implementation of other NR 151 runoff management standards. A complete list of TRM grant projects funded since 2005 are listed in Table G-1, Agricultural Runoff Management Grant Projects in WI River TMDL project area. Urban Runoff management grant projects in the basin during this same timeframe are listed in Table G-2. One recent notable TRM grant awarded in the project area was the $805,385.00 award received by Marathon County for Fenwood Creek Watersheds, the most significant P loading HUC-12 within the Big Eau Pleine Watershed; the Big Eau Pleine itself is the highest loading tributary upstream of Petenwell Reservoir. This grant award spans Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2018 and includes funding for both cropping ($25,373) and structural BMP’s ($739,935), as well as local assistance ($39,825). As a condition of the grant, Marathon County has developed a 9-key element watershed plan for Fenwood Creek (HUC-12) watershed to meet or make progress towards the Wisconsin River TMDL water quality reduction goal requirements for this watershed. 7.3.5 Notice of Discharge (NOD) Grants Program 7.3.5.1 NOD PROGRAM OVERVIEW Notice of Discharge (NOD) Project Grants, also governed by ch. NR 153, Wis. Adm. Code, are provided by WDNR and DATCP to local units of government (typically counties). A combination of state General Purpose Revenue, state Bond Revenue, and federal Section 319 Grant funds are used to support NOD grants. The purpose of these grants is to provide cost sharing to farmers who are required to install agricultural best management practices to comply with Notice of Discharge requirements. Notices of Discharge are issued by the WDNR under ch. NR 243 Wis. Adm. Code (Animal Feeding Operations - http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/ code/nr/nr243.pdf), to small and medium animal feeding operations that pose environmental threats to state water resources. The project funds can be used to address an outstanding NOD or an NOD developed concurrently with the grant award. Both state agencies work cooperatively to administer funds set aside to make NOD grant awards. Although the criteria for using agency funds vary between the two agencies, WDNR and DATCP have jointly developed a single grant application that can be used to apply for funding from either agency. The two agencies jointly review the project applications and coordinate funding to assure the most cost-effective use of the available state funds. Funding decisions must take into account the different statutory and other administrative requirements each agency operates under. Grant application materials are available on the WDNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/NOD.html. Page 81 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 7.3.5.2 NOD GRANT PROJECTS IN THE TMDL PROJECT AREA Since 2005, 14 TRM grants have funded the construction and implementation of agricultural best management in the TMDL project area. Over $2.1 million dollars in TRM grant awards have gone towards funding over $3.0 million in agricultural management practices, including construction manure facilities storage, barnyard runoff control practices and implementation of other NR 151 runoff management standards. A complete list of NOD grant projects funded since 2005 are included in Table L-1 of Appendix L, Agricultural Runoff Management Grant Projects in WI River TMDL project area. Currently there are six livestock facilities located within the project area have been determined to be in violation of state agricultural performance standard and/or manure management prohibition requirements. As a result, these facilities have received NOD grants to install and implement BMP’s to meet NR 151 agricultural performance standard and manure management prohibitions. 7.3.6 Lake Management Planning Grants The WDNR provides grants to eligible parties to collect and analyze information needed to protect and restore lakes and their watersheds and develop lake management plans. Section 281.68, Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 190, Wis. Adm. Code, provide the framework and guidance for WDNR’s Lake Management Planning Grant Program. Grant awards may fund up to 66% of the cost of a lake planning project. Grant awards cannot exceed $25,000 per grant for large-scale projects. Eligible planning projects include:  Gathering and analysis of physical, chemical, and biological information on lakes.  Describing present and potential land uses within lake watersheds and on shorelines.  Reviewing jurisdictional boundaries and evaluating ordinances that relate to zoning, sanitation, or pollution control or surface use.  Assessments of fish, aquatic life, wildlife, and their habitats. Gathering and analyzing information from lake property owners, community residents, and lake users.  Developing, evaluating, publishing, and distributing alternative courses of action and recommendations in a lake management plan. Grants can also be used to investigate pollution sources, including nonpoint sources, followed by incorporation into the lake management plan of strategies to address those sources. Investigation can involve many types of assessment, including determining whether or not the water quality of the lake is impaired. A plan approved by WDNR for a lake impaired by NPS pollution should incorporate the U.S. EPA’s “Nine Key Elements” for watershed-based plans. Grant application materials are available on the WDNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/SurfaceWater.html. 7.3.7 Lake and River Protection Grants 7.3.7.1 LAKE PROTECTION GRANT PROGRAM OVERVIEW The WDNR provides grants to eligible parties for lake protection grants. Sections 281.69 and 281.71, Wis. Stats., and ch. NR 191, Wis. Adm. Code, provide the framework and guidance for the Lake Protection Grant Program. Grant awards may fund up to 75 percent of project costs (maximum grant amount $200,000). Page 82 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Eligible projects include:  Purchase of land or conservation easements that will significantly contribute to the protection or improvement of the natural ecosystem and water quality of a lake.  Restoration of wetlands and shorelands (including Healthy Lakes best practices) that will protect a lake's water quality or its natural ecosystem (these grants are limited to $100,000). Special wetland incentive grants of up to $10,000 are eligible for 100 percent state funding if the project is identified in the sponsor's comprehensive land use plan.  Development of local regulations or ordinances to protect lakes and the education activities necessary for them to be implemented (these grants are limited to $50,000)  Lake management plan implementation projects recommended in a plan and approved by WDNR. These projects may include watershed management BMPs, in-lake restoration activities, diagnostic feasibility studies, or any other projects that will protect or improve lakes. Sponsors must submit a copy of their lake management plan and the recommendation(s) it wants to fund for WDNR approval at least two months in advance of the February 1 deadline. Plans must have been officially adopted by the sponsor and made available for public comment prior to submittal. The WDNR will review the plan and advise the sponsor on the project's eligibility and development of a lake protection grant application for its implementation. Grant application materials are available on the WDNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/SurfaceWater.html. 7.3.7.2 RIVER GRANT PROGRAM OVERVIEW The WDNR provides grants to eligible parties for river protection grants. Chapter 195, Wis. Adm. Code, provides the framework and guidance for the River Protection Grant Program. This program provides assistance for planning and management to local organizations that are interested in helping to manage and protect rivers, particularly where resources and organizational capabilities may be limited. River Planning Grants up to $10,000 are available for: Developing the capacity of river management organizations,  Collecting information on riverine ecosystems,  River system assessment and planning,  Increasing local understanding of the causes of river problems River Management Grants up to $50,000 are available for:  Land/easement acquisition,  Development of local regulations or ordinances that will protect or improve the water quality of a river or its natural ecosystem,  Installation of practices to control nonpoint sources of pollution,  River restoration projects including dam removal, restoration of in-stream or shoreland habitat, Page 83 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin  An activity that is approved by the WDNR and that is needed to implement a recommendation made as a result of a river plan to protect or improve the water quality of a river or its natural ecosystem,  Education, planning and design activities necessary for the implementation of a management project. The state share of both grants is 75% of the total project costs, not to exceed the maximum grant amount. Grant application materials are available on the WDNR web site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/SurfaceWater.html. 7.3.7.3 LAKE AND RIVER PLANNING & PROTECTION GRANTS IN THE TMDL PROJECT AREA Since 2005, over $2.0 million in lake and river planning projects and nearly $3.0 million in lake protection grants have funded over $7.8 million in lake and river planning and projects in the TMDL project area. A complete list of Lake and River Planning and Protection grant projects funded and undertaken in the basin since 2005 are listed in Tables G-3 and G4, Lake and River Planning and Protection Grants Projects in WI River TMDL project area. 7.3.8 DATCP Soil & Water Resource Management Program DATCP oversees and supports county conservation programs that implement the state performance standards and prohibitions and conservation practices. DATCP’s Soil and Water Resource Management (SWRM) Program requires counties to develop Land and Water Resource Management (LWRM) Plans to identify conservation needs. Each county Land and Water Conservation Department in the TMDL area developed an approved plan for addressing soil and water conservation concerns in its respective county. County LWRM plans advance land and water conservation and prevent NPS pollution by:         Inventorying water quality and soil erosion conditions in the county. Identifying relevant state and local regulations, and any inconsistencies between them. Setting water quality goals in consultation with the WDNR. Identifying key water quality and soil erosion problems, and practices to address those problems. Identifying priority farm areas using a range of criteria (e.g., impaired waters, manure management, high nutrient applications). Identifying strategies to promote voluntary compliance with statewide performance standards and prohibitions, including information, cost-sharing, and technical assistance. Identifying enforcement procedures, including notice and appeal procedures. Including a multi-year work plan to achieve soil and water conservation objectives. Counties must receive DATCP’s approval of their plans to receive state cost-sharing grants for BMP installation. DATCP is also responsible for providing local assistance grant funding for county conservation staff implementing NPS control programs included in the LWRM plans. This includes local staff support for DATCP and WDNR programs. In CY 2016 alone, DATCP awarded $1,118,912 in grants to counties in the TMDL area for local assistance and BMP implementation. The Wisconsin River TMDL provides County Land and Water Conservation Departments with the data necessary to more effectively identify and prioritize pollutant sources so that strategies can be developed and applied to reduce pollutant loads in the TMDL area over time. 7.3.9 DATCP Producer Led Watershed Protection Grants Program In an effort to improve the quality of Wisconsin’s waterways, DATCP developed and launched the first Producer Led Watershed Protection Grants Program in 2016. The new grant program included in the 2015Page 84 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 17 Wisconsin state budget, was designed to give financial support to farmers willing to lead conservation efforts in their own watersheds. In the first round of 2016 grants, $242,550 was awarded to 14 groups of innovative farmers to work with resource conservation agencies and organizations to address soil and water issues tailored to their local conditions. Included in this first round of awards was a $20,000 award to the Farmers of Mill Creek for Water quality improvement and public outreach in Mill Creek. Specifically, through this project, the Farmers of Mill Creek Watershed Council will work with Portage County UW-Extension to perform cover crop research regarding effects on soil moisture and temperature, as well as research on agricultural drains to improve water management. The group will also offer incentives for planting cover crops and focus on outreach to farmers through educational field days. Mill Creek is the fourth highest TP loading tributary watershed upstream of Petenwell Reservoir. 7.3.10 Federal Programs Numerous federal programs are also being implemented in the TMDL area and are expected to be an important source of funds for future projects designed to control phosphorus and sediment loadings in the Wisconsin River TMDL Basin. A few of the federal programs include:     Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP is a federal cost-share program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provides farmers with technical and financial assistance. Farmers receive flat rate payments for installing and implementing runoff management practices. Projects include terraces, waterways, diversions, and contour strips to manage agricultural waste, promote stream buffers, and control erosion on agricultural lands. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP is a voluntary program available to agricultural producers to help them safeguard environmentally sensitive land. Producers enrolled in CRP plant long-term, resource conserving covers to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat. In return, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides participants with rental payments and cost-share assistance. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP provides annual rental payments up to 15 years for taking cropland adjacent to surface water and sinkholes out of production. A strip of land adjacent to the stream must be planted and maintained in vegetative cover consisting of certain mixtures of tree, shrub, forbs, and/or grass species. Cost-sharing incentives and technical assistance are provided for planting and maintenance of the vegetative strips. Landowners also receive an upfront, lump sum payment for enrolling in the program, with the amount of payment dependent on whether they enroll in the program for 15 years or permanently. Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) promotes coordination between NRCS and its partners to deliver conservation assistance to producers and landowners. NRCS provides assistance to producers through partnership agreements and through program contracts or easement agreements RCPP combines the authorities of four former conservation programs – the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative and the Great Lakes Basin Program. Assistance is delivered in accordance with the rules of EQIP, CSP, ACEP and HFRP; and in certain areas the Watershed Operations and Flood Prevention Program. 7.3.10.1 FEDERAL GRANTS IN THE WI RIVER TMDL PROJECT AREA In early 2015, Sauk and Juneau Counties which comprise the majority of the Baraboo River Watershed, one of the highest TP loading tributary watersheds in the project area, received an RCPP grant focused on improving water quality within the Baraboo River Watershed through the promotion and installation of soil and water conservation practices. The primary resource concern addressed through the Baraboo River Page 85 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Watershed RCPP is Water Quality Degradation, specifically high phosphorus and sediment levels being contributed to surface waters within the watershed. Subsequent to receiving this grant, Sauk Co. used the EVAAL model to prioritize the farms most vulnerable to erosion for BMP implementation. 7.3.11 Water Quality Trading & Adaptive Management Water Quality Trading (WQT) and Adaptive Management (AM) may be used by eligible municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers to demonstrate compliance with TMDL WLAs. Both of these compliance options provide a unique watershed-based opportunity to reduce pollutant loading to streams, rivers, and lakes through point and nonpoint source collaboration. AM and WQT may also provide a new source of funding for local assistance and implementation of management measures to address nonpoint source pollution and improve water quality. The WDNR web site provides more details about water quality trading at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/WaterQualityTrading.html and adaptive management at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/AdaptiveManagement.html. Wasteload allocations have also been broken down into the amount needed for the reach to meet local water quality requirements and the amount needed to meet downstream water quality criteria for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. 7.3.12 Healthy Soil, Healthy Water Partnership DNR staff had a “behind the scenes” role in establishing a partnership between water quality advocates and producers in the Wisconsin River Basin. The approach used was to identify and develop relationships with individuals in the agricultural community representative of the various types of agriculture in the basin, who are also well connected and respected among their peers; in many cases these were individuals with leadership roles in their respective agricultural organizations. Among these individuals were further identified likely “innovators” and/or early adopters of conservation practices. Through relationships with these individuals, areas of overlap between producer interests and water quality goals were investigated. Understanding these areas of overlap helped to find common ground and develop a strategy for promoting phosphorus reductions from agricultural operations that focused on healthy soil – which includes cover crops and no-till practices. The first effort towards this end was a Healthy Soil, Healthy Water workshop for producers in the basin to learn and share stories about no-till and cover crop practices. The workshop featured a nationally known soil health expert as well as local producers who have already implemented no-till and cover crops practices, who shared their experiences about what works and what doesn’t in their specific location. Over 65 producers participated in the workshop. A unique feature of this approach was that participation in the workshop was achieved by extending a personal invitation to producers in the region from someone each producer already knew. Once the group agreed on a set of shared goals and commitments, it worked to highlight practices and share information with peers through informal conversations and more formal events such as farm tours, workshops, etc. The Healthy Soil, Healthy Water partnership’s next step is to invite agronomists and the producers they work with to participate in a workshop as a group, so producers and agronomists that work with similar operation types and in similar physical settings can learn together about the local and operation-specific information they need to implement no till and cover crops, and provide each other with post-workshop peer support and reinforcement. Post-Implementation Monitoring A post-implementation monitoring effort will determine the effectiveness of the implementation activities associated with the TMDL. WDNR will monitor the tributaries of the Wisconsin River Basin based on the rate of management practices installed and tracked through the implementation of the TMDL, including sites where Page 86 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin WDNR, DATCP, and NRCS grants are aimed at mitigating phosphorus and sediment loading. Monitoring will occur as staff and fiscal resources allow until it is deemed that stream quality has responded to the point where it is meeting its codified designated uses and applicable water quality standards. In addition, the streams of the TMDL area may be monitored on a rotational basis as part of WDNR’s statewide water quality monitoring strategy to assess current conditions and trends in overall stream quality. That monitoring consists of collecting data to support a myriad of metrics contained in WDNR’s baseline protocol for wadeable streams, such as the IBI, the HBI, a habitat assessment tool, and several water quality parameters determined on a site by site basis. WDNR will work in partnership with local citizen monitoring groups to support monitoring efforts which often provide a wealth of data to supplement WDNR data. All other quality-assured available data in the basin will be considered when looking at the effectiveness of the implementation activities associated with the TMDL. Statewide Tracking Database Tracking the implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution reduction practices on the landscape is an important but often challenging component of TMDL implementation tracking and assessment. These challenges become even greater in the context of point source permit compliance programs that require NPS partnerships such as adaptive management, water quality trading and the multi-discharger variance. A database system for efficiently and effectively tracking implementation of nonpoint source pollution implementation practices is currently under development by the WDNR. The system will include a web-based portal, allowing externals to easily and efficiently submit information via a GIS-based application for submitting, visualizing and tracking spatial data. Implementation of Current TMDL Allocations and SSC Based Allocations As discussed throughout the report, two sets of allocations are included in this TMDL. The allocations in Appendix J are based on the current promulgated water quality criteria and the allocations in Appendix K are based on the proposed SSC for Lakes Petenwell, Castle Rock, and Wisconsin. Implementation of the allocations contained in Appendix K can only occur after the SSC have been adopted by rule per ch. NR 102.06(7), Wis. Adm. Code, and approved by USEPA. It is crucial to note that the SSC allocations contained in Appendix K only apply to the proposed SSC presented in Table 5. If SCC values other than those proposed in Table 5 are adopted by rule and approved by USEPA, than the allocations in Appendix K cannot be used and a new set of allocations will need to be calculated and documented in an updated version of the TMDL. This revised TMDL would need to go through the public approval process outlined in ch. NR 212.77, Wis. Adm. Code, and be re-submitted for USEPA approval. The SSC allocations presented in Appendix K must be approved under two separate actions: 1) state and USEPA approval of the TMDL, and 2) state promulgation and USEPA approval of the SSC listed in Table 5. After all of this has occurred, DNR will notify USEPA and stakeholders that adoption of the SSC has occurred and submit the necessary documentation to USEPA to confirm that the SSC-based wasteload allocations will be implemented in future WPDES permits. From that point forward, SSC WLAs would be implemented in WPDES permits via permit modification or reissuance. Implementation of the load allocations contained in Appendix J and K are both implemented through ch. NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code. Implementation of the load allocations contained in Appendix J and K that exceed the current performance standards in subchs. III and IV of ch. NR 151, Wis. Adm. Code, is voluntary unless adopted through ch. NR 151.005, Wis. Adm. Code. Page 87 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin The Wisconsin River Basin TMDL expresses wasteload allocations for TP as maximum annual loads (pounds per year) and maximum daily loads (pounds per day), which equal the maximum annual loads divided by the number of days in the year. As described in the “TMDL Implementation Guidance for Wastewater Permits” (available on-line at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/tmdls/implementation.html), total phosphorus WQBELs for wastewater discharges covered by the WRB TMDL should be derived in a similar manner as methods used for Lower Fox River TMDL discharges. That is, consistent with the impracticability demonstration, TP limits should be expressed as a monthly average when wasteload allocations equate to a TP effluent concentration greater than 0.3 mg/L, and as a six-month average and monthly average equal to 3 times the six-month average when WLAs equate to a TP effluent concentration equal to or less than 0.3 mg/L. The Wisconsin River TMDL establishes TP wasteload allocations to reduce the loading in the entire watershed including WLAs to meet water quality standards for tributaries to the Wisconsin River. Therefore, WLA-based WQBELs are protective of immediate receiving waters and limit calculators will not need to include TP WQBELs derived according to s. NR 217.13, Wis. Adm. Code. Since wasteload allocations are expressed as annual loads (lbs/yr), permits with TMDL-derived monthly average permit limits should require the permittee to calculate and report rolling 12-month sums of total monthly loads for TP. Rolling 12-month sums can be compared directly to the annual wasteload allocation. The above guidance for expressing TMDL wasteload allocations as permit limits is based on USEPA’s statistical method for deriving water quality-based effluent limits as presented in 5.4 and 5.5 of the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001; https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf). 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION USEPA expects full and meaningful public participation in the TMDL development process, and TMDL regulations require that each State/Tribe must provide opportunities for public review consistent with its own continuing planning process (40 C.F.R. §130.7(c)(1)(ii)). EPA is required to publish a notice seeking public comment when it establishes a TMDL (40 C.F.R. §130.7(d)(2)). Wisconsin DNR believes that public outreach and meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the TMDL development, TMDL implementation planning, and TMDL implementation process results in better outcomes and overall TMDL success. With this in mind, the Wisconsin DNR has provided many ways for stakeholders to learn about the Wisconsin River TMDL and provide input in the TMDL development process, as described in the following subsections. Wisconsin River Symposium For five years spanning 2011 to 2015, the Wisconsin DNR in collaboration with UW-Stevens Point Center for Watershed Science and other partners, organized and hosted an annual Wisconsin River symposium, a full day event centrally located within the basin at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Each symposium provided updates on Wisconsin TMDL development, including monitoring and modeling. The annual symposium also provided a venue for stakeholders to learn about issues, events and opportunities for involvement in the TMDL project area, as well as a forum for discussion about issues among stakeholders. The WDNR provided the majority of funding for each symposium, as well substantial staff time towards planning and presenting at the event. Each year, the symposium was announced via email, and via postcards mailed directly to known stakeholders including municipal wastewater and industrial facilities, county land and water conservation department staff, state agency staff, tribal representatives, engineering consultants, business owners, citizen watershed groups and individual citizens. Symposium information, including registration, was posted online, and shared through phone calls and word of mouth. Approximately 150 people attended the symposium Page 88 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin each year. Agendas and presentations from each year’s symposium can be found online at: HTTP://DNR.WI.GOV/TOPIC/TMDLS/WISCONSINRIVER/SYMPOSIUM.HTML. Invited Presentations at Stakeholder Sponsored Meeting Wisconsin River TMDL Project team members are frequently invited to make public presentations about the TMDL at the regular meetings of various organizations. Between 2012 and 2016, Wisconsin River TMDL project team members provided presentations at meetings of the following organizations: Petenwell and Castle Rock Stewards, Lake Wausau Associations, Lake Wisconsin Citizens Group, Big Eau Pleine Citizen Organization Conference, National Conference for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Wisconsin River Discharger Group (WRDG), Wisconsin Paper Council, Wisconsin Government Affairs Seminar, American Society of Civil Engineers, Wisconsin Lakes Convention, Wisconsin River Industrial Discharger Group (WRIDA), Famers of Mill Creek Watershed Council, Wood County CEED Committee, North Central Wisconsin Stormwater Coalition, North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers (WPVGA) Annual Conference. In addition, TMDL project team members have had faceto-face meetings/discussion about the TMDL with most of the groups previously listed in this paragraph, as well as the following additional groups: Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation; Wisconsin Farmers Union; Dairy Business Association (DBA); Wisconsin Agricultural Center for Excellence; Dairy Grazing Apprenticeship; Women Food and Agriculture Network; Coloma Farms/DATCP Board President; and Land Conservation, CPZ and/or NRCS staff in all the following Counties: Adams, Columbia, Juneau, Lincoln, Marathon, Portage, Sauk, and Wood. Technical Meetings & Webinars At various points during TMDL development WDNR provided opportunities for technical stakeholders to come together, virtually or in person, to discuss and ask questions about TMDL data, modeling approaches, and various technical issues. In November 2013, the TMDL Development Team organized and hosted two full-day meetings (11/6 and 11/13) with technical stakeholders to present, discuss, and accept feedback on the technical details of the proposed TMDL modeling scope and approach. A detailed technical scope of work was made available externally for review one month prior to these meetings (10/4). During the meetings, WDNR modeling staff and technical partners made detailed presentations about each component of the technical modeling scope, as well as monitoring results. Sixty-seven (67) technical stakeholders attended and participated in the meetings. The aforementioned technical scope, technical presentations, and meeting agendas are available online at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/WisconsinRiver/techapproach.html and http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/WisconsinRiver/techmtg.html. Additional webinars presented by the Wisconsin River TMDL team, include the list below:    On April 20, 2016 WDNR hosted a technical presentation by EPA contractor LimnoTech Inc. on the development and results of CE-QUAL-W2 model of Castle Rock and Petenwell Reservoirs. On September 7, 2016 WDNR in partnership with UW-Extension hosted and presented a technical TMDL webinar on the topic of model integration and allocation methodology. Nearly seventy (70) individuals watched the webinar live and many more later watched the recording, which is available online http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/WisconsinRiver/presentations.html. On November 17, 2016 WDNR hosted and presented a technical TMDL webinar on reservoir modeling updates. Thirty (30) individuals watched the webinar live and many more later watched the recording, which is available online http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/TMDLs/WisconsinRiver/presentations.html. Page 89 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Draft TMDL Model Review In addition to the previously mentioned technical meetings and webinars, WDNR staff in collaboration with TMDL technical stakeholders, developed a process for external review of draft TMDL models by interested technical stakeholders, throughout the TMDL development process. This process provided external stakeholders with the ability to access draft models and basic accompanying documentation at set points during the TMDL process. Each time draft models were shared, a formal opportunity to ask questions about the model was provided, via conference call or Skype meeting. WDNR then responded in writing to all comments and questions received within 21 days each time models were made available. The availability of draft models for review was announced via the Wisconsin River TMDL GovDelivery email subscription list; GovDelivery announcements contained a link that allowed recipients to download draft models. Table 16 summarizes the dates and information shared as part of this process. TA B L E 1 6 . D R A F T T M D L P R O D U C T S AC C E S S I B L E F O R E X T E R N A L R E V I E W DURING TMDL DEVELOPMENT Draft Product SWAT Model Subbasins Date Accessible for Review Email Recipients No. of Unique Opens Date of DNR Response to Comments 01/16/2015 531 134 02/25/2015 08/13/2015 915 234 09/23/2015 Technical Memo 10/02/2015 963 228 11/13//2015 Draft Model 04/21/2016 1258 291 -- Product Type Topographic Slope Wetlands/ Internally Drained Areas Climate Spatial Data Groundwater Baseflow phosphorus Land Cover/Management Urban model reach-shed delineation SWAT Model Development Report Wastewater Facility Summary Excel Table Scripts used to develop SWAT model input layers Data Proc. Scripts Wastewater Baseline Excel Table Urban Model Draft Model Lake Wisconsin Bathtub Draft Model Lake DuBay Bathtub Draft Model Calibrated SWAT Model Draft Model Model Analysis & Preparation of CE-QUAL-W2 modeling of Caste Rock and Petenwell Reservoirs CE-QUAL-W2 lake response models of Petenwell and Castle Rock Reservoirs Page 90 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Draft Product Lake DuBay Bathtub Model Product Type Draft Model Calibrated SWAT Model Summary Results Model Results Date Accessible for Review Email Recipients No. of Unique Opens Date of DNR Response to Comments 05/04/2016 1265 279 -- Other Stakeholder Meetings & Webinars Wisconsin DNR together with UW-Extension also organized and hosted meetings and presented webinars for general stakeholder audiences. In January 2015, WDNR, together with UW-Extension hosted a workshop to discuss the important role of agricultural stakeholders and partnerships in efforts to improve water quality in the Wisconsin River basin. Fifty-two (52) stakeholders attended and participated in the meeting. On September 11, 2013 Wisconsin DNR in partnership with UW-Extension hosted and presented a Wisconsin River TMDL overview webinar. In July 2013 Wisconsin DNR produced and posted online a webinar covering the land use and land management inventory and model input layers development used to develop the TMDL SWAT model. Both of these webinars are available online on at the web address included in the previous section. Wisconsin River TMDL GovDelivery Email Subscription List On August 27, 2014 Wisconsin DNR launched a Wisconsin River TMDL GovDelivery email subscription list. The Wisconsin River Govdelivery list is used to communicate project updates, announce opportunities for technical review and input, events, and distribute the project newsletter. At its inception, the GovDelivery list invitation was sent to 288 individuals on existing Wisconsin River TMDL email lists. A link was added to the Wisconsin River TMDL website that allowed anyone to subscribe or unsubscribe at any time. By February of the following year (2015), the number of subscribers had more than doubled, reaching 622. By the end of 2015 the number of subscribers had exceeded 1,000. As of this writing, there are over 1,900 subscribers. The increase in the number of receipts through Govdelivery reflects the growing interest in the project as it progressed. TA B L E 1 7 . W I S C O N S I N R I V E R T M D L G O V D E L I V E RY L I S T B U L L E T I N S No. Bulletin Subject Sent Date Recipients Welcome to Wisconsin River TMDL Subscription Service Wisconsin River TMDL Quarterly Newsletter Opportunities for Wisconsin River TMDL Technical Stakeholder Input Schedule for Upcoming Release of Draft TMDL Models Save the Date - 2015 WI River Symposium is March 19! Wisconsin River TMDL Draft Models Now Accessible Register for WI River Symposium & Submit Draft Model Comments Wisconsin River Basin Quarterly Newsletter, Issue 2 Response to Comments on Draft WR TMDL Models WI River TMDL Quarterly Newsletter - May 2015 Schedule for Upcoming Release of Draft TMDL Model Data Update on Upcoming Release of Draft TMDL Model Data Wisconsin River TMDL Draft Data/Models Now Accessible WI River TMDL Quarterly Newsletter - August 2015 WR TMDL "E-chat" - RSVP due TODAY Response to Comments on Wisconsin River TMDL Draft Data/Models 08/27/2014 11/13/2014 12/17/2014 01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/16/2015 02/03/2015 02/09/2015 02/25/2015 05/11/2015 08/05/2015 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 08/19/2015 08/24/2015 09/23/2015 288 417 476 528 529 539 574 589 622 782 905 915 915 921 926 958 Page 91 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Bulletin Subject Upcoming Release of Draft WR TMDL Models Wisconsin River TMDL Draft Models Now Accessible WR TMDL "E-chat" - RSVP due TODAY WI River TMDL Quarterly Newsletter, Nov 2015 Response to Comments on Draft Calibrated WR TMDL SWAT Model April 20 Presentation of Castle Rock & Petenwell Response Models Draft WI River TMDL Models Now Available WI River TMDL draft SWAT Model Summary Results Response to Comments on Draft Calibrated Reservoir Models Register Now for WI River TMDL Model Integration & Allocation Methods Webinar Upcoming WI River TMDL Webinar – Clarifications WI River TMDL Model Update – Nov 17 Webinar Press Release and GOV Delivery Notification of Webinar on draft TMDL Report and Allocations Webinar on Draft TMDL Report and Allocations Informational Meetings on March 5th, 6th, and 14th. Sent Date 09/29/2015 10/02/2015 10/12/2015 11/19/2015 11/13/2015 04/01/2016 04/21/2016 05/02/2016 06/01/2016 No. Recipients 959 963 972 1228 1258 1265 1298 08/30/2016 1402 09/01/2016 10/27/2016 1399 1438 02/07/2018 02/21/2018 03/2018 1,979 Draft TMDL Allocations and Draft TMDL Review The DNR conducted a webinar on Wednesday, February 21, at 1 p.m. to provide the public with an overview of the TMDL analysis and explain how to access the report and allocations. The webinar was also be recorded and made available on the DNR website, dnr.wi.gov. The webinar kicked off a series of informational meetings to provide an even more detailed explanation of the TMDL analysis, allocations and any needed reductions, implementation and compliance options, and to provide opportunities for additional stakeholder input. Meeting was the same at all locations and times.    March 5, 2018, 1-4 p.m., at the Quality Inn located in Rhinelander (668 W Kemp St, Rhinelander, WI 54501) March 6, 2018, 10 a.m.-noon and 4-6 p.m., at the Portage County Courthouse Annex Building (1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481-2947) March 14, 2018, 10 a.m.-noon and 4-6 p.m., at the Portage Public Library (253 W Edgewater St, Portage, WI 53901) For those who are unable to attend the sessions, comments on the initial draft TMDL plan, which was released at the time of the webinar, could be submitted to DNRWisconsinRiverTMDL@wisconsin.gov or by mail to: Kevin Kirsch Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster St. PO Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Stakeholder input from these listening sessions may be incorporated into the final draft of the TMDL plan that will be made available for a formal 30-day public comment period. Once finalized, the TMDL plan is sent to EPA for their review and approval. After the plan is approved by EPA, permits issued must be consistent with the TMDL allocations and DNR will work with stakeholders to develop watershed implementation plans. Page 92 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin 9 REFERENCES Berkman, H. E., and C. F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:285-294. The Cadmus Group. 2011. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids in the Rock River Basin. The Cadmus Group. 2012. 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. Jensen, J. P., Pedersen, A. R., Jeppesen, E., & Søndergaard, M. 2006. An empirical model describing the seasonal dynamics of phosphorus in 16 shallow eutrophic lakes after external loading reduction. Limnology and Oceanography 51 (1) 791-800. Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885–900. Neitsch S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry, and J. R. Williams. 2002a. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000. USDA, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, Blackland Research Center. Newcombe, C. P., and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693-727. Robertson, D. M., Saad, D. A., & Heisey, D. M. 2006. A regional classification scheme for estimating reference water quality in streams using land-use-adjusted spatial regression-tree analysis. Environmental Management, 37(2), 209–229. Robinson, J. S., A. N. Sharpley, and S. J. Smith. 1992. Estimating bioavailable phosphorus loss in agricultural runoff: Method development and application. In Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 65th Annual Conference and Exposition, September 20-24, 1992. New Orleans, LA, pp. 375-385. Sharpley, A.N. and J.R. Williams, eds. 1990. EPIC--Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model documentation. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1768. 235 pp. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. Vondracek, B., J. K. H. Zimmerman, and J. Westra. 2003. Setting an effective TMDL: Sediment loading and effects of suspended sediment on fish. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:1005-1015. Walker, William W., Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment & Prediction: User Manual Instruction Report W-96-2 USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1996 (Updated September 1999) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Petenwell and Castle Rock Flowages Comprehensive Management Plan. Wisconsin DNR PUBL-WR-422-95 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. The State of the Lower Wisconsin River Basin Report. Wisconsin DNR PUBL WT-559-2002. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. The State of the Central Wisconsin River Basin Report. Wisconsin DNR PUBL WT-558-2002. Page 93 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. The Headwaters State of the Basin Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Ecological landscapes of Wisconsin (No. Handbook 1805.1). Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/Book.html   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Wisconsin’s Nonpoint Source Program Management Plan FFY 2016-2020. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Nonpoint/documents/NPSProgramManagementPlan20162020.pdf Page 94 Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus in the Wisconsin River Basin Appendices Appendix A Tributary Information and Charts Appendix B Lakes Requiring Additional Evaluation Appendix C Site-Specific Criteria Analysis Appendix D Watershed Modeling Documentation Appendix E Sediment Monitoring Appendix F Baseline Load Appendix G MS4 Detail Maps Appendix H Total Phosphorus Loading Capacity of Petenwell and Castle Rock Flowages Appendix I BATHTUB and Empirical Lake Models Appendix J Allocations Appendix K Proposed Site-Specific Criteria Allocations Appendix L Watershed Implementation Activities Appendix M CE-QUAL-W2 Reservoir Model Page 95