Building Effective Upstream Nutrient Reduction Programs

Building Credible and Effective Upstream Nutrient Reduction ProgramsHydroVision International • July 24th, 2013 • Denver, CO

David Primozich • Senior Director of Ecosystem Services • The Freshwater Trust

Title of the slide here

www.thefreshwatertrust.org

Water trends: United States

United State’s Impaired Watersunder Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act

Percentage of rivers and streams reported to EPA as “fair” or “poor” water quality.

0% – 10%

10% – 30%

30% – 50%

50% – 80%

80%+

Did not report

United States overall:35% impaired


Existing Conditions

Æ Conservation largely reactive to environmental challenges at a small scale (fish, wildlife, water quality, etc.)

Æ Regulatory drivers only present on small percent of overall impacts

Æ Entities have historically invested heavily in technological solutions to single drivers, which is appropriate for some, but not all new parameters.


Need New Approaches to Meet NPS Challenge

SOURCE: http://www.deq.state.or.us

Point Source

Non-Point Source

86%

14%

Thermal impacts of non-point vs point sources,

Willamette River TMDL


For restoration to be viable compliance alternative...

ClEAr AUThorITy: Æ Regulators must adopt and promote

required rules.

ClEAr FrAMEWorK: Æ Approved standards and protocols for

measuring ecosystem services and implementing creditgenerating projects.

ClEAr rISK: Æ Third-parties (such as The Freshwater Trust)

willing to assure delivery of compliance-grade credits with secure, turn-key projects.

Three Keys for restoration to Work



Example: Marsing reach of the Snake river

Sediment loads are a primary factor to degraded conditions.

Æ 230,515 lbs per day average during irrigation season

Æ Increased phosphorus loads

Æ Increased macrophyte abundance

Æ Decrease inter gravel flows (key to buffering water temperature fluctuations)

Æ Decrease oxygen in gravels



results of Nutrient loading

heavy sediment loads in slow moving water create the conditions for in channel plant growth that exacerbates degradation.

Æ Further decrease water velocities

Æ Increase deposition of fine sediments

Æ Increase temperatures

Æ Attract and promote warm water non-native fish species



Suite of Nutrient reduction Actions Needed

Æ Address inputs (i.e. irrigation drains, sediment, nutrients, thermal, etc.)

Æ Develop emergent wetlands for treatment



Existing Conditions Given Nutrient LoadingExisting181 acresExample of Macrophyte Proliferation



Example Action: Construct Wetland at End of Drain

Existing181 acres

Proposed 129 acresSITE 1

Existing & Proposed Macrophyte Production Area

8,000 CFS



Example Actions: on-farm Upgrades & BMPs



Example Actions: Upgrade to overhead



Example Program: reduction Potential from Upgrades

UPlIFT ESTIMATES: Irrigation and tillage upgrades in 43% of agricultural land in study area provide 100% of necessary load reduction

Crops Modeled AcresPer Acre Reduction (lb/acre/yr)

Total Sediment reduction (lb/yr)

Irrigation Improvements

Alfalfa 3,926 469 1,840,000

Corn 2,702 6,096 16,470,000

Sugar Beets 2,134 12,419,002 6,080,000

Winter Wheat 589 832 490,000

Irrigation Sub Total 24,888,000

Tillage Improvements

Alfalfa 3,926 441 1,730,000

Corn 2,702 5,760 15,560,000

Sugar Beets 1,4111 3,736 5,270,000

Winter Wheat 589 781 460,000

Tillage Sub Total 23,020,000

Total 14,781 35,153,611 47,900,000



Example Action: Riparian Restoration

Ken Denman Wildlife Area Aerial View



Willow planting 10’ wide at 20’ tall

Cottonwood/Alder planting 40’ wide at 100’ tall

Ken Denman Wildlife Area Riparian Planting

Example Action: Riparian Restoration


Verification & Registration


Example Reduction Ledger

Credit Type Baseline Post-restoration Reduction

Temperature (kCals/day)

56,246,205 41,726,475 14,519,730

Phosphorus(lbs/year)

6 1 5

Nitrogen(lbs/year)

103 12 91

Sediment(lbs/year)

8,243 3,331 4,912



Æ Projects have baseline data and are monitored annually

Æ Monitoring data is collected and stored by the StreamBank web platform, providing a searchable/reportable database of project results that can also be ported to other databases

StreamBank® web platform

Monitoring: Performance & Transparency


Traditional restoration vs. Compliance Grade Credits

Traditional restoration Steps Compliance-Grade Credit Generation Steps

Identify project site Identify project site

Fundraising Financing

Negotiate 20+ year contract with landowner

Collect baseline data

Project design Project design

Estimated credit values

Implement Implement

Verification that implementation meets standards

Certification that credits meet accounting protocols

Credit registration

Monitoring and maintenance (Years 1 – 3) Monitoring and maintenance (Years 1 – 3)

Monitoring and maintenance (Years 4 – 20)

Annual payments to landowners (20+ years)

= Local Project Managers = The Freshwater Trust


Regulated entity’

Riparian Restoration Æ Assured Quality Æ Embedded Governors Æ Compliance-grade

Credits

web platform

restoration Alternative Transaction Process

Project Funding & Recruitment

Credit Calculation

Verification &Certification

Credit Registration

Project Implementation

local PRoject ManageRs(Watershed councils, ngos, etc.)

landoWneRs

KEy

= Entities

= Producers

= Credits

= Restoration Project Management Web Platform

nutrients

enViRonMentalRegistRy

Credit Sale

ceRtiFication

VeRiFication

Regulated entity’

Building Credible and Effective Upstream Nutrient Reduction ProgramsHydroVision International • July 24th, 2013 • Denver, CO

David Primozich • Senior Director of Ecosystem Services • The Freshwater Trust

Technology

Building Effective Upstream Nutrient Reduction Programs