Water Quality Trading In The Bear River Basin. EPA National Watershed Initiative Bear River Basin WIS WQT Market WQ ModelingOutreach EPA GuidebookFinancial.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
(your state) Master Farmer Program
Advertisements

Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 – Seattle Region 10 – Seattle
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
1 Module 1: Building a Legal Foundation for Good Water Governance.
TMDLs and the NACD TMDL Task Force TMDLs NACD TMDL Task Force TMDL Draft Policy Trading and TMDLs.
Pollutant Trading Discussion 22 July Why Allow Trading? §To make point sources pay §To lure nonpoint sources into doing pollution control so we.
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Bureau of Water Overview Wastewater issues Drinking water issues Wrap up topics.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality TMDLs 101 An Explanation of the Federal Clean Water Act’s TMDL Requirements and How they Impact Carter Lake.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin Alabama Water Resources Conference September 6, 2012 A Feasibility Study of Nutrient Trading in Support of.
Developing Modeling Tools in Support of Nutrient Reduction Policies Randy Mentz Adam Freihoefer, Trip Hook, & Theresa Nelson Water Quality Modeling Technical.
Questions to answer What is the overall modeling approach (after calibration and background scenarios)? What are the WLA assumptions? How will Avista’s.
Imperial River: Water Quality Status and Basin Management Action Plan.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Lee County Government Division of Natural Resources TMDL/BMAP Update TMDL/BMAP Update November 30, 2010 Roland Ottolini, Director Lee County Division of.
Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in EPA Region 10 Programs: An example based on a newly initiated pilot in the Office of Water and Watershed’s Total.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Emissions Trading The Economics of Emissions Trading The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.
Watersheds on Wall Street? Water Pollutant Trading Becky Shannon, Missouri Department of Natural Resources Craig Smith, University of Missouri Extension.
1 Market Structures for U.S. Water Quality Trading Richard T. Woodward & Ronald A. Kaiser Texas A&M University.
Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring for Investigating the Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Monitoring Techniques Little Bear River Basin Jeffery S.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions – Estimating a Tradable Commodity Allen R. Dedrick Associate Deputy Administrator Natural Resources & Sustainable.
Tom Singleton Associate VP, Director, Integrated Water Resources an Atkins company Linking TMDLs & Environmental Restoration.
Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources Christopher Gale Bill Taft.
VIRGINIA’S TMDL PROCESS.
Brent Mason, Mackenzie Consoer, Rebekah Perkins BBE 5543 November 8, 2011.
Water Quality Reduction Trading Program Draft Rule Language Policy Forum January 29,
Executive Committee Meeting February 27, Year Assessment Report Overview This is the fifth annual report on the basin management action plan (BMAP)
Environmental Incentives Tony Vessa CE
Department of the Environment Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program Phase I- Trading between point sources and trading involving connecting on-site septic.
STATUS OF GREEN LAKE. Status of Green Lake Lake Management Plan Approved Lake Management Plan Approved Three Grants Awarded Three Grants Awarded.
Watershed Management Assessment Through Modeling: SALT and CEAP Dr. Claire Baffaut Water Quality Short Course Boone County Extension Office April 12, 2007.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Ground Water. Any water that seeps under the surface of the Earth Important source of drinking water Divided into 2 zones.
Water Quality Trading David Roberts 28 March 06 The answer to water quality woes?
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Redwood River TMDL Critique David De Paz, Alana Bartolai, Lydia Karlheim.
Eric Agnew Environmental Regulations February 15, 2006.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Ganesh Pangare, IUCN Asia and Mario Aguirre, IUCN South America What mechanisms are in place to allocate water to the environment? Are they effective?
VACo Environment and Agriculture Steering Committee VML Environmental Policy Committee June 2, 2010 Charlottesville, VA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Roanoke.
Preserving York County 2010 Municipal Educational Series January 28, 2010 Rick Keister, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jake Romig, York County Circuit.
Air Quality Management Comparison of Cap-and-Trade, Command-and Control and Rate-Based Programs Dr. Ruben Deza Senior Environmental Engineer Clean Air.
Introduction to Water Quality Trading National Forum On Water Quality Trading July 22-23, 2003 Chicago, Illinois.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Caroline County Pilot Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Katheleen Freeman, AICP, Director Caroline County Department of Planning & Codes Leslie Grunden,
Regulatory Approaches to Address Agricultural Water Quality Catherine L. Kling Department of Economics Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa.
MPCA: An Agency & Legislative Update Brad Moore, Commissioner June 22, 2007.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program How Trading Works John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Request approval to proceed to EMC with 2014 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan.
Commonwealth of Virginia TMDL Program Update Citizen for Water Quality Annual Summit September 22, 2001.
St. Johns County Water Quality Program Update March 15,
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
Elements and Functions of a Market Program To Reduce CA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lawrence H. Goulder.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
USEPA TARGETED WATERSHEDS GRANT
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
David Stevens, Nancy Mesner, Terry Glover, Arthur Caplan
Water Quality Trading – Utah Perspective
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Local Government Engagement Initiative January 16, 2018
Developing a Water Quality Trading Framework
Presentation to Maryland’s Trading Advisory Committee March 21, 2016
Presentation to Maryland’s Trading Advisory Committee March 21, 2016
Upper Clark Fork Watershed Restoration and TMDLs
Presentation transcript:

Water Quality Trading In The Bear River Basin

EPA National Watershed Initiative Bear River Basin WIS WQT Market WQ ModelingOutreach EPA GuidebookFinancial Feasibility In Bear River Basin Online Trading Room for Bear River Basin

What is WQT? A market-based mechanism that allows a source facing relatively high pollution-reduction costs to compensate another source to achieve a less-costly reduction with the same or higher water-quality benefit. Suppose Source A is required to reduce a unit of total phosphorus (TP) from the river. For whatever reason, it costs Source A $100 to clean up that unit. Source B, on the other hand, can clean up a unit for $80. Under WQT, there is room for Source A to pay Source B something less than $100 but more than $80 for Source B to clean up that unit of TP.

A Necessary Condition for Establishing WQT Market A TMDL(s) that (1) allocates a “pollution budget” across all point and non-point sources located in the river basin, and (2) facilitates the implementation of a WQT market.

WWTF #1 Bob’s Farm Stinky’s Cheese Factory WWTF #2 Smelly’s Meat-Packing Plant Stan’s Farm Receptor Point River Flow

Watershed Profile Source Current TP Load Target TP Load Total Red. Needed Type of Control Tech. Adjusted Red. Achieved Cost of Control Tech. Cost per Reduction Achieved

Bear River Watershed Determine if TP permit trading in the Bear River Watershed is viable Specifically, trading among point and nonpoint sources Focus area Middle Bear Sub-watershed Bear River Watershed Middle Bear Sub-Watershed

Bear River/Malad Sub Basin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Plan (January 2005) Lower Bear River Water Quality Management Plan (November 1995) Many impaired reaches due to excess total phosphorus loading. Many reaches cross state boundaries, implying need for interstate effort to combat problem. Middle Bear Sub-Watershed Cub River Sub-Watershed

Cub River Worm Creek Cherry Creek City Creek High Creek Spring Creek Current TP Load = 108,611 lbs/yr Allocation = 18,520 lbs/yr Reduction = 90,092 lbs/yr Cub River Sub-Watershed Worm Creek Cub River

Point and Nonpoint Sources Point Sources Preston WWTP Franklin WWTP Richmond WWTP Nonpoint Sources Cropland Pasture Animal feedlots Point Sources Nonpoint Sources

Trading Scenario Preston WWTF Current Load = 3,563 lbs/yr Allocation = 115 lbs/yr Reduction = 3,449 lbs/yr Farmer 1 Current Load = 221 lbs/yr Allocation = 37 lbs/yr Reduction = 184 lbs/yr Is it beneficial for Preston WWTP to trade with Farmer 1? Preston WWTP Farmer 1

Farmer 1 is able to create 16 credits by implementing conservation tillage practices (assuming 90% reduction rate). Farmer 1 could profit by selling each credit to the Preston WWTP for an amount greater than $2.78. Preston WWTP could lower their cost of compliance by buying Farmer 1’s 16 credits for less than $ per credit.