Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin


Published on

Wisconsin is the only Great Lakes state with statewide numeric water quality standards for phosphorus. In the Fox-Wolf basin, where phosphorus pollution is a major issue, there are projects underway to meet those standards through the innovative strategies of water quality trading and Wisconsin’s “adaptive management option” This workshop will illustrate each strategy through case studies and a discussion of their similarities and differences. This presentation was given by Victoria Pebbles, Program Director, Great Lakes Commission.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Phosphorus Management in the Fox-Wolf Basin

  1. 1. Applying  Water  Quality  Trading    in  the  Lower  Fox   River  Watershed  
  2. 2. Fox  P  Trade   •   3.5  year  project   •   Water  Quality  Trading   •  Nutrient  Trading   •  Phosphorus  Trading   •   Leverage  and  build  on  other   work  to  date   •  Wisc.  P  Rule  (NR  102,  NR  217,   NR  151)   •  State  WQT  Guidance   •  LFRW  TMDL   •  Various  studies  (e.g.,  FWWA,   Sea  Grant,  UWGB,  etc.)   •  Design  a  P  trading  program   specifically  for  the  LFRW  
  3. 3. Great  Lakes  Commission     •  8  states;  2  provinces   •  To  promote  the  orderly,   integrated,  and  comprehensive   development,  use,  and   conservation  of  the  water   resources  of  the  Great  Lakes   Basin   •  Great  Lakes  Basin  Compact   (1955)  
  4. 4. Wisconsin  Delega9on  to  the  GLC   Ken  Johnson,  Administrator,   Water  Division   Steve  Galarneau,  Director,  Office   of  the  Great  Lakes   Dean  Haen,  Director,  Water   Division,  Brown  County  Port  and   Solid  Waste    Department  
  5. 5. Great  Lakes  Commission   Program  Areas   Core  Services     Clean  Energy  and  Climate   Communications   Water-­‐Dependent  Economy     and  Infrastructure   Analysis  &Reporting   Invasive  Species   Facilitation/   Consensus  Building   Water    Resource  Management     Water  Quality  and  Ecosystem   Health   Policy  Coordination/   Advocacy   Habitat  and  Coastal  Management   +  
  6. 6. Steps  to  Develop  A  WQT  Program     1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  Set  Goals   Convene  Stakeholders   Assess  Feasibility   Hyp0thetical  Scenarios   Design  Program   a)  b)  c)  d)  e)  Goal     Quantification  methods   Risk  Management   Administration   Guidance  Document   6.  Pilot  Design   7.  Adapt—apply  lessons  learned    
  7. 7. Fox  P  Trade  Task  Timeline   Fox  P  Trade  -­‐-­‐  Total  Project:    42  months  -­‐-­‐  3/1/13  -­‐  9/30/16   Task     1   2   3       4   5   Title   Develop  Workplan  and  Project   WQ  Goal   Convene  Stakeholders   Feasibility:  Supply   Feasibility:  Demand     Feasibility:  Market  Survey   HypotheKcal  Trade  Scenarios   Design:  ArKculate  Goal   Year  1  (2013)   Year  2  (2014)   Year  3  (2015)   Year  4  (2015)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Design:  QuanKficaKon  Methods       Design:  Manage  Risk             Design:  Program  AdministraKon       Design:  Guidance  Document       6   Pilot  Design  (as  resources  allow)                                       7   Lessons  Learned                                      
  8. 8. Goal   —  to  establish  a  phosphorus  trading  program  where   trades  are  enabled  by  a  combination  of  cost  effective   approaches  that  contribute  to  improved  instream  water   quality  in  the  Lower  Fox  River  Watershed       —  Set  in  part  by  NRCS  Grant  Terms   —  Influenced  by  WI  DNR  policy   —  P  limits  set  by  state  regulations   —  TMDL  load  allocations   —  WQT  guidance  
  9. 9. Convene  Stakeholders   —  Collaborative  process  that  runs  throughout  project   —  Objectives:   —  Build  direct  relationships  between  buyers  and  sellers   —  Enable  the  regulated  community,  farmers,  other   Advisory  Group   businesses,  ENGOs,  and  others  to  have  candid   conversations  about  their  goals  for  the  watershed  and   Technical  Resource   their  individual  drivers  (e.g.,  cost  of  permit  compliance)   Team(s)   —  Safeguard  interest  of  those  not  directly  involved  in  the   process,  but  who  are  interested  and  stand  to  benefit  or   lose  from  a  successful/failed  program  
  10. 10. Project  Management   Team        
  11. 11. Working  Group   —  Great  Lakes  Commission  (GLC)     —  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture   —  Lower  Fox  Dischargers   —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —    Natural  Resources  Conservation   Service  (USDA-­‐NRCS)   Wisconsin  Department  of   Natural  Resources  (WDNR)   Brown  County  Land  and  Water   Conservation  Department     EPA  Region  5,  Water  Division   Fox-­‐Wolf  Watershed  Alliance   Northeast  Wisconsin   Stormwater  Consortium   (NEWSC)   Green  Bay  Metropolitan   Sewerage  District  ("NEW   Water")   —  —  —  —  Association   Northeast  Wisconsin   Stormwater  Consortium     Oneida  Nation  of  Wisconsin   Outagamie  County  Land   Conservation  Department   University  of  Wisconsin   Extension   Wisconsin  Association  of   Professional  Agricultural   Consultants   Clean  Wisconsin  
  12. 12. Advisory  Group   —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Alliance  for  the  Great  Lakes   Applied  Ecological  Services,  Inc.     ARS   Baird  Creek  Preservation   Foundation   Bay-­‐Lake  Regional  Planning   Commission   Brickstead  Dairy   Brown  County  Land  and  Water   Conservation  Department   Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs   Calumet  County  Land  &  Water   Conservation  Department   City  of  Appleton   City  of  Green  Bay   Clean  Wisconsin     Conestoga-­‐Rovers  and  Associates     Dairy  Business  Administration     DATCP     DNR     Earth  Tech  AECOM   East  Central  Wisconsin  Regional   Planning  Commission   EPA  GLNPO,  Region  5   Fox-­‐Wolf  Watershed  Alliance     Georgia  Pacific   Glacierland  RC&D   —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Green  Bay  Metropolitan  Sewerage   —  District  ("NEW  Water“)   —  Greenleaf  Advisors,  LLC     —  Marek  Landscaping,  LLC   —  Michael  Fields  Agricultural  Institute     —  Michigan  Farm  Bureau   Midwest  Environmental  Advocates     —  Northeast  Wisconsin  Technical   —  College   —  NRCS   —  Oneida  Tribe     —  Outagamie  County  Land   —  Conservation  Department     Polenske  Agronomic  Consulting  Inc   —  Professional  Dairy  Producers  Of   Wisconsin     —  Professional  Nutrient  Applicators   Assoc  of  Wisconsin   —  River  Alliance  of  Wisconsin     —  Sand  County  Foundation     Sierra  Club   The  Nature  Conservancy     —  Tidy  View  Dairy     USACE       —  USDA-­‐FS   —  —  —  —  USFWS     USGS     UW  Discovery  Farms   UW  Extension     UW-­‐Green  Bay   UW-­‐Milwaukee   UW-­‐Oshkosh   UW  Sea  Grant  Institute     Village  of  Allouez   Village  of  Ashwaubenon   Village  of  Bellevue   Winnebago  County  Land  &  Water   Conservation  Department     Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences,   Arts  and  Letters   Wisconsin  Agri-­‐Business  Association     Wisconsin  Association  of   Professional  Agricultural   Consultants   Wisconsin  Corn  Growers   Association     Wisconsin  Farm  Bureau  Federation     Wisconsin  Farmers  Union   Wisconsin  Land  &  Water   Conservation  Association     Wisconsin  Paper  Council   Wisconsin  Soybean  Association    
  13. 13. Economic  Demand  Feasibility   —  Determine  whether  there  will  be  enough  demand   (who  will  “buy”  the  credits)   —  Characterize  potential  demand/pollution  reduction   needs   —  —  X  lbs  of  P/year     Cost  Per  lb  reduction   —  Determine  cost  differential/willingness  to  pay  -­‐   difference  between  cost  of  trading  and  next  cheapest   option  
  14. 14. Economic  Supply  Feasibility   —  Determine  whether  there  will  be  enough  supply  (who   will  sell  the  credits  and  how  much  can  they  generate)   —  Assess  total  watershed  load  reduction  potential  from   unregulated  and  nonpoint  source  areas.     —  Calculate  what  portion  of  the  total  load  reduction   potential  is  needed  to  meet    TMDL  load  allocations   Load  reduction   Load  reduction   Total  load  to  achieve  the  credit  threshold).   (i.e.,   needed  to  meet   that    can   reduction   TMDL/credit   generate  P   potential   —  Calculate  total  amount  threshold   of  creditable  load  reductions   credits   (e.g.,  load  reductions  beyond  the  credit  threshold).    
  15. 15. Compare  Demand  and  Supply  to   Assess  Overall  Economic  Feasibility   —  Determine  whether  P  load  reductions  from  unregulated   and  nonpoint  sources  are  adequate  to  offset  the  need  for   reductions  from  point  source  discharges.       —  Can  the  watershed  generate  enough  P  credits  to  meet  the   needs  of  the  credit  buyers  (demand)?   —  Target  Promising  Credit  Generating  Areas   —  Of  the  which  sub-­‐watersheds  have  the  greatest  credit   generation  potential?   —  Which  individual  farms/municipalities  within  those  sub-­‐ areas  have  the  greatest  potential  to  generate  credits  for  sale/ trade?  
  16. 16. Hypothe9cal  Scenarios   —  2-­‐4  promising  sellers  and  buyers   —  real  farm/facility  data  will  be  used  to  determine:   —  BMPs  installed/credit  generation  (apply  trade  ratios)   —  purchase  potential  (amount  buyer  willing  to  spend  on   credits)   —  credit  value   —  cost  of  sale   —  Expose  the  greatest  areas  of  risk  and  uncertainty  from   both  the  seller  and  buyer  perspective   —  Prepare  documentation  to  address  all  risk  and  liability   assurances  to  support  the  trade  
  17. 17. Trading  Infrastructure   —  Eligibility—determine  who  is  eligible  to  trade   —  Calculate  credit  generation  potential   —  Validate  proof  of  tile,  rights  to  credits,  plans  for  restoration/conservation/credit   generation  (e.g.,  nutrient  management  plan  implementation)   Ø  Seller’s  Project  validation  checklist     —  Verification  and  Certification  —independent  process  to  verify  that:   —  Conservation  actions  are  additional  (beyond  credit  threshold)   —  Planned  management  actions  can  achieve  stated  load  reductions  (independent   calculation  of  load  reductions)   —  A  long-­‐term  stewardship  plan  is  in  place  to  implement  and  maintain  the  practices     Ø  Credit  Calculator:    A  Simple  Tool  to  Calculate  Credit  Generation   —  Build  on  existing  models  (e.g.,  SNAP-­‐plus)management  actions  can  achieve  stated  load   reductions  (independent  calculation  of  load  reductions)   —  Use  WI  DNR  Trade  Ratios—account  for  uncertainty  
  18. 18. More  Trading  Program  Elements   —  Reporting  and  Tracking—housing  information  about   individual    trades;  tracking  trades  over  time   —  Liability,  Enforcement,  and  Other  Risk  Management   —  Assurances  for  credit  buyers—reflecting  trades  in   permits   —  Addressing  “what  ifs”   —  Long  Term  Program  Administration   —  Verification  and  certification   —  Tracking  and  reporting   —  Brokering    
  19. 19. Actions   Calculate  Credit   Generation  Potential   Assurances   Eligibility  requirements   •   Is  the  project  additional?   •   Are  plans  in  place?   Identify  and  Design  BMPs   Identify  Buyers   Implement  BMPs   Quantify  Credits  and  Apply   Trading  Credit  Ratios   Trade  Ratios   •  To  Account  for  uncertainty     Verification  and   Certification   Are  credit  calculations  correct?   Is  all  documentation  in  place?   Verify  Credits   Registration   Register  Credits   Sell  Credits   Ongoing  maintenance   and  verification     •  To  track  credits  over  time   Ongoing  Verification   •  Are  BMPs  meeting  performance   standards?  
  20. 20. Pilot  Design  (tbd)   —  Use  guidance  document  and  supporting  information   to:   —  identify  one  or  more  prospective  buyers  and  one  or   more  prospective  sellers     —  facilitate  a  trading  agreement  (possibly  those  buyers   and  sellers  selected  for  hypothetical  scenario)   —  craft  a  trading  agreement  and  all  supporting   documentation       Ø Trading  would  commence,  but  Fox  P  Trade  project   will  not  oversee  implementation  of  the  trade  
  21. 21. Deliverables   —  P  trading  guidance  document  for  the  LFRW   —  Eligibility  checklist   —  Credit  calculator  that  quantifies  environmental   improvements  associated  with  various  BMPs  and   other  activities  and  converts  them  into  credits  that   can  be  traded     —  Contract  templates,  verification  and  other  forms   —  Program  administration  qualifications  and  desired   services  
  22. 22. Next  Steps  (6  months)   —  Continue  to  Engage  Working  Group  and   Stakeholder  Advisory  Group   —  Issue  RFP;  Begin  Feasibility  Study   —  Scope  Hypothetical  Trading  Partners    
  23. 23. Thank  you!   Victoria  Pebbles,  Program  Director   Great  Lakes  Commission   (734)  971-­‐9135