• Save
Proposed Rule Changes - Jim Baumann
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Proposed Rule Changes - Jim Baumann

on

  • 995 views

Presentation given at Sweet Water's Forum on Phosphorus held on May 27, 2010

Presentation given at Sweet Water's Forum on Phosphorus held on May 27, 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
995
Views on SlideShare
992
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.swwtwater.org 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Proposed Rule Changes - Jim Baumann Proposed Rule Changes - Jim Baumann Presentation Transcript

    • Proposed Changes to NR 151, NR 102 and NR 217 Nonpoint Performance Standards and Phosphorus Water Quality Standards Criteria Jim Baumann
    • History and Background
      • Phosphorus related water quality problems in Wisconsin lakes and streams have been recognized for decades
        • Nuisance algal blooms in lakes
        • Low dissolved oxygen levels in streams and rivers
        • Cladophora
        • Blue Green algae
    • Visible Water Quality Problems
    • History and Background (cont.)
      • In 2000, EPA required states to develop nutrient water quality standards
      • In the event that states do not adopt criteria, EPA may adopt criteria for the state
      • In 2002, the NRB directed what became the Wisconsin Buffer Initiative
    • Phosphorus from many Point Sources and Nonpoint Sources
    • Phosphorus from many Point Sources and Nonpoint Sources Relative contribution varies greatly across state when you look at individual lakes and streams
    • History and Background (cont.)
      • Developing procedures for point source permits does not imply that point sources are the dominant cause of all phosphorus related water problems
      • Nonpoint source management procedures proposed in NR 151 and also necessary to address the problem
    • Phosphorus Source Control Rules
      • Nonpoint Source
        • NR 151
          • Performance standards and prohibitions
          • Cost-share tied enforcement – agr.
      • NR 243 CAFOs
      • Urban Stormwater
        • NR 216
          • 40% TSS
        • Phosphorus ban – lawn fertilizer
    • Phosphorus Source Control Rules
      • Wastewater Treatment Plants
        • NR 217 existing
          • Technology based limits
        • Phosphate ban – dishwasher detergent
    • Chapter 151 Nonpoint Source Performance Standards Proposed Changes
    • Chapter NR 151 - Nonpoint
      • Phosphorus index (PI)
        • Fields must meet PI=6
        • 8 year accounting period
        • cap of 12
      • Requires control of process wastewater
      • Tillage Setback
        • Maintain stream bank integrity
        • No direct tillage of soil into water
        • 5 foot minimum
    • Chapter NR 151 - Nonpoint
      • Must offer cost sharing to require compliance
      • However:
        • Cross compliance with working lands necessary to obtain property tax credits
        • Hardship cost-sharing = 90%
    • Chapter 102 Phosphorus Numeric Water Quality Criteria
    • Chapter NR102 – P Criteria
      • Rivers – 100 ug/l (46 listed)
      • Streams – 75 ug/l
      • Lakes and Reservoirs – 15 – 40 ug/l
        • Lake Michigan – 7 ug/l
        • Lake Superior – 5 ug/l
      • No ephemeral streams, wetlands, LAL waters
    • NR 102 – P Criteria
      • If DNR does not adopt criteria, EPA may adopt them for Wisconsin
      • EPA could use:
        • DNR proposed criteria
        • EPA 25 th percentile values
        • Most stringent “breakpoint” from DNR/USGS studies
        • Any other values deemed to be protective of designated uses
    • NR 217 Phosphorus Criteria Implementation for Point Sources
    • NR 217 – Implementation
      • Applies to:
        • Public / private treatment works
        • CAFOS (alternative systems)
        • Storm water (if necessary)
      • Requires Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) if necessary to meet criteria
    • NR 217 - Implementation
      • Examples
        • > 1mg/l
          • Eagle River, Crivitz, Iola, Rhinelander
        • 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l
          • Grafton, Chippewa Falls
        • ~0.1 to 0.2 mg/l
          • Waukesha, Madison, Baraboo, Chilton
        • Some may change through TMDLs
    • NR 217 - Implementation
      • WQBELS Expressed as
        • Concentration
        • Mass (in certain cases)
      • Compliance measured as 30-day rolling average – although many comments on averaging period
    • NR 217 - Implementation
      • Flexibility to consider cost and other factors
        • TMDLS
          • – allot load reductions between point and nonpoint sources
          • Reevaluate in 2 permit terms
        • Compliance Schedules
          • Length based on degree of necessary modification, need for additional property, likelihood of TMDL development
          • 7 – 9 years
          • Requires interim effluent limits
    • NR 217 - Implementation
      • Flexibility to consider cost and other factors
        • Adaptive Management
          • Nonpoint > 50%
          • Permit 1 – 0.6 mg/l – reevaluate
          • Permit 2 – 0.5 mg/l – reevaluate
          • Permit 3 – Calculated WQBEL if necessary
        • Variances
          • Lagoon systems
          • Statutory process
        • Pollutant Trading
    • NR 217 - Implementation
      • Major Comments
        • EPA
          • Concern over rule variance for lagoons
          • Compliance schedules must meet criteria ASAP, without regard to cost
        • Environmental Groups
          • Downstream water quality considered limits
          • Compliance ASAP
          • Case-by-case review of all lagoon variance requests
    • NR 217 Implementation (cont.)
        • Municipalities and Industries
          • Relative contribution of phosphorus to nonpoint sources statewide
          • Affordability
          • Phased implementation through adaptive management option
          • Longer averaging periods for compliance