Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Non Point Source Credit Generators
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Non Point Source Credit Generators

269

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
269
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Perspective from Non-point Source Credit Generators July 18, 2013 Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza Cincinnati, Ohio Roger Wolf, Director of Environmental Programs and Services, Iowa Soybean Association
  • 2. 2 Overview Drivers and Motivation Our Understanding, Concerns and Challenges A Watershed Infrastructure Perspective Question and Discussion
  • 3. 8/5/2013 3
  • 4. Wheat Upper Midwest Crop Area 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 CropAreaHarvested(1000ha) 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Corn SoybeanHay Oat Wheat Source: Jim Baker - ISU • Upper Midwest dominated by privately owned and managed croplands. • Nutrients lost from agricultural landscape due to land use change over time • Finding mechanisms to increase management capabilities key 8/5/2013 4
  • 5. Our understanding and concerns regarding trading: - We recognize that Water Quality Standards and Caps are what generates the drivers for a trading opportunity. - We believe we can supply lots of credits, however given the geography of the Pt and Nonpoint source communities is variable there may not be enough buyers to be meaningful. - What is liability for farmer if performance is not realized? 8/5/2013 5
  • 6. Our understanding and concerns regarding trading: - What are the specific terms and conditions of the trade? - Who are the ultimate gate keepers of trades? - Farmers believe they are already using many/most of BMPs recommended and as such not sure what trading does for them specifically. - Trades perceived to be very structured and will require brokers/middleman and paperwork. 8/5/2013 6
  • 7. Challenges for advancing water quality trading with farmers: • Land tenure – owners / operators • Technological limitations – weather and landscape variability year to year • Validating performance, is it site specific or at some other scale? • Overcoming the regulated vs non regulated dynamic and equity concerns –Urban vs Rural. 8/5/2013 7
  • 8. Iowa Soybean Association Watershed Work Actively working on 225 farms, 52 defined watersheds - 8 HUC 8’s and 44 HUC 12’s (27 active and 17 supporting) covering over 6.4 million acres and coordinating with over 35 public and private partners.
  • 9. • A comprehensive plan for the watershed (follows IDNR/EPA watershed planning protocol) • Goals/Objectives/Actions • Infield/Edge of Field • Set of integrated solutions; no silver bullet • Implementation Projects: • Upper Cedar River watershed - Rock Creek (Walton Foundation) - Beaver Creek (IFC/WMA) - IEDA/HUD; sub-watershed planning (WMA/MSA) • Chequest Creek (Davis County) - Watershed management Plan (IFC/WMA) • Other Watershed Management Authorities • Priority watersheds/Nutrient Management Strategy Environmental Programs and Services Watershed Services - Planning Implementation Funding: • National Water Quality Initiative ~$250,000; 2012 ~$328,000; 2013 • EPA Section 319 ~$420,000 • Iowa DNR - TBD • Local Match/Other - TBD
  • 10. Watershed Planning and Implementation • Watershed Implementation Plans • Dedicated Technical and Financial Assistance • Implement, track and validate practices • Stakeholder engagement
  • 11. Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy  A science-based framework for assessing and reducing nutrient loss from both point and nonpoint sources.  Nonpoint Source Goals  Reduce Total N by 41%  Reduce Total P 29%  Dedicated and leveraged funding
  • 12. Agriculture Nitrogen Reduction Practices Practice % Nitrate-N Reduction [Average (Std. Dev.)] Nitrogen Management Timing (Fall to spring) 6 (25) Source (Liquid swine compared to commercial) 4 (11) Nitrogen Application Rate Depends on starting point Nitrification Inhibitor 9 (19) Cover Crops (Rye) 31 (29) Land Use Perennial – Land retirement 85 (9) Living Mulches 41 (16) Extended Rotations 42 (12) Edge-of-Field Drainage Water Mgmt. 33 (32)* Shallow Drainage 32 (15)* Wetlands 52 Bioreactors 43 (21) Buffers 91 (20)** * Load reduction not concentration reduction **Concentration reduction of that water interacts with active zone below the buffer - Source Iowa State University Nutrient Science Assessment Team Annual Enviro Performance depends on where practices are applied. Perf. not same every year. Operators control decision making. Multiple Year Impl. Higher capital cost to install. Will require owner in decision. Better able to predict and validate performance.
  • 13. Data Aggregation Source: Preliminary STAARS Data Analysis N= 72 Producers 149 Fields Iowa Soybean Association Environment Programs and Services, February 2013 Funded by: Soybean Checkoff, USB and 6 QSSB’s
  • 14. Quantifying Practices No Till 33% 1 Tillage Pass 6% 3 Tillage Passes 5% Fall Disk/Spr Cultivate Fall Plow/Spr Cultivate Fall Deep Till/Spr Cultivate Other Till 2 Tillage Passes 56% Frequency of Tillage among 2010 Iowa Soybean Fields (n=151) Source: Preliminary STAARS Data Analysis Iowa Soybean Association Environment Programs and Services, February 2013 Funded by: Soybean Checkoff, USB and 6 QSSB’s
  • 15. Drainage Water Treatment Woodchip Bioreactor Source: Christianson, Laura and Matthew Helmers. 2011. Woodchip bioreactors for nitrate in agricultural drainage. Iowa State University Extension Publication. PMR 1008. Available at: https://store.extension.iastate.edu/ItemDetail.aspx?ProductID=13691.
  • 16. Lyons Creek Watershed Management Plan 5. Goals and Objectives 5.1 LYONS CREEK GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal 1: Within 20 years of project start date reduce nitrate-N loads leaving the Lyons Creek watershed by 34% or 80,616 pounds per year while maintaining agricultural productivity. This is the required reduction from the Des Moines River Nitrate TMDL. Objective 1: Implement best management practices aimed at avoiding, trapping and treating nitrate-N in surface water within the Lyons Creek watershed. Task 1: Enroll 4,000 acres of nutrient management plans. Task 2: Install 12 denitrifying bioreactors. Task 3: Install 3 nitrate removal wetlands. Task 4: Implement 3,000 acres of cover crops. Task 5: Implement 150 acres of pasture management. Task 6: Install 200 acres of streamside buffers. Task 7: Implement 2,000 acres of reduced tillage practices. Task 8: Restore 8 oxbow wetlands. Page 25 Lyons Creek Watershed Plan http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/water/watershed/files/lyonscreekwmp.pdf
  • 17. Lyons Creek Watershed - Implementation
  • 18. Validating Performance • 600 – 1,100 acres • Two treatment; one control
  • 19. 8/5/2013 19 Summary: • Nutrient issue are real, complex and challenging to tackle in variable landscape. • We are working on these issues by engaging famers in watershed management. • Working with both point and non point source community in a watershed context is desirable. • Targeting locations in landscape where we can achieve reductions makes sense to farmers.
  • 20. 8/5/2013 20 Summary: • Watershed infrastructure to produce services to meet downstream outcomes presents a logical framework for achieving outcomes. • Financing watershed infrastructure – similar to wastewater and drinking water infrastructure will need to be realized to achieve downstream expectations. • Financing mechanisms – trading other services – recreation ? carbon?

×