1 / 19

NR 102/NR 217 Update

NR 102/NR 217 Update. Chris Groh-Wastewater Trainer Wisconsin Rural Water Association. Background. DNR Bureau of Watershed Management has proposed new phosphorus criteria for rivers and streams into NR 102.6 Criteria is now 100 ug /L (0.1 mg/L) for listed rivers

linnea
Download Presentation

NR 102/NR 217 Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NR 102/NR 217 Update Chris Groh-Wastewater Trainer Wisconsin Rural Water Association

  2. Background • DNR Bureau of Watershed Management has proposed new phosphorus criteria for rivers and streams into NR 102.6 • Criteria is now 100 ug/L (0.1 mg/L) for listed rivers • 75 ug/L (0.075 mg/L) for all other streams, unless exempted • Limits for Lake Superior is 5 ug/L (0.005 mg/L)

  3. Background • 46 Listed streams: • Bad River from confluence w/Marengo River w/I Bad River Res. Downstream to L. Superior • Chippewa River from L. Chippewa in Sawyer county downstream to Mississippi River, excluding Holcombe, Cornell Old Abe L. Wissota and Dells Pond • Flambeau River from Turtle-Flambeau in Iron county to Chippewa River, excluding Pixley, Crowley, Dairyland flowages

  4. Background • 46 Listed streams: • Jump River confluence w/ North Fork & South Fork of Jump River in Price County to Holcombe Flowage • Namekagon River from outlet of Trego Lake to St. Croix River • Red Cedar River from Confluence w/Brill River, excluding Rice, Tainter, Menomin • St. Croix River from confluence w/Namekagen River downstream to Miss. River, excluding Lake St. Croix near Hudson

  5. Background • 46 Listed streams: • St. Louis River from state line to the opening between Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point at Lake Superior • S. fork of Flambeau River from HWY 13 near Fifield to Flambeau River • Tomahawk River from outlet of Willow Reservoir to L. Nokomis • White River from outlet of White River Flowage in Ashland county to Bad River

  6. Hearings 4 Public Hearings concerning this rule:

  7. Hearings • Written comments from 411 individuals and organizations • 217 in support • 62 oppose • 121 neutral positions • 11 support some oppose some part of the rule

  8. Hearings • Support from: • Lakes and river associations • Environmental groups • Individuals who want strong rules limiting phos inputs into lakes & streams • Lakeshore property owners, small businesses municipalities that depend on tourism • Opposition: • Municipalities • Paper industries • Dairy farmers

  9. Comments and Responses • Developing Criteria • Criteria does not take into account availability, phos limits don’t necessarily protect the water, phos impairment should be impaired by phos and not other things in the streams (light, other nutrients, stream gradient, etc) • According to EPS and EPA based studies…OK

  10. Comments and Responses • Downstream degradation can cause modification of point source phos limits…Take out this rule and go to site-specific criteria • NO

  11. Comments and Responses • Exclude phos from water treatment (polyphos water treatment; Delete phos loadings from stormwater discharges; exclude non contact cooling water (phos used for corrosion control) • NO • Also OK to exclude CAFOs that do not treat manure

  12. Comments and Responses • Include the ability to establish a WQBEL if a plant has the potential to discharge phos • OK…we will

  13. Comments and Responses • DNR should limit how much phos can be “traded” with farmers • We’ll get to that later

  14. Comments and Responses • DNR should limit variances and compliance schedules because WWTPs may use this ploy to extend them having to comply with the rule • No…we’ll give this one to the WWTPs

  15. Comments and Responses • Adaptive Management (“trading”) is not compliance because the municipal system is not an action or operation change • OK…back to s----ing the WWTPs

  16. Comments and Responses • Just because phos removal technology is expensive is not justification to give out a compliance schedule; it should be illegal to just exempt ponds or systems that can’t afford to further remove phos • OK…we will put it on the backs of the municipalities to seek out and work with local farmers to trade phos credits

  17. Comments and Responses • Add RSF to exemption of pond systems • Can’t hurt to ask!? • Superior limits

  18. Comments and Responses • DNR agrees that the cost estimate was under estimated for industrial and municipal • You can afford a few million $ for upgrades…can’t you??

  19. Comments and Responses • Basically, the DNR is stuck because 7 groups of “environmentalists” are threatening to sue EPA if they do not set these limits. • Clean Water Action Council of North East Wisconsin • Gulf Restoration • Milwaukee River Keepers • River Alliance of Wisconsin • Wisconsin Wildlife Federation • Midwest Environmental Advocates

More Related