P4P: Reducing

Phosphorus from

Agriculture Creating a Pay-for-Performance Program using Field-specific Information

in the West Branch of the Milwaukee River Watershed

2014 Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference

May 1, 2014

Project Team

Misaligned Programs & Incentives

Point Sources

On the hook to implement

treatment technologies to meet

more stringent permit limits

WWTPs will be able to meet P

permit limits only at great expense

relying on water treatment

technology alone.

Even if permit limits are met,

water quality impairments from

nutrients may not improve

Non-Point Sources

Conservation dollars are focused on practice implementation

Environmental outcomes not explicit goal

No motivation or incentive for producers to take most cost-effective actions

Conservation activities have not reduced impairments in many regions

Economic Justification

Well-established markets are lacking

Current incentives (cost-share) tied to specific practices

Broad eligibility criteria

Designed to offset cost

Effectiveness varies greatly

Performance-based incentives can develop into a price for pollution control

Pay-for-Performance Conservation

Rewards farmers for achieving specific environmental performance targets

Farmers choose how to achieve targets

Incentivizes farmers to choose the most cost-effective actions

Providing appropriately designed incentives for environmental

performance will result in efficient allocation of resources at the farm

level.

Allowing flexibility to achieve performance targets will motivate farmers,

induce innovation, and reduce costs.

Why the West Branch?

Heavy Ag (75%)

Location, location, location

Upstream of Milwaukee

Watershed drains into Lake Michigan

and has direct impacts on

environmental quality

On the ground work happening

Sand County Foundation’s Ag

Incentives program (since 2010)

Engage with farmers in nutrient

management planning

37,000 acres

Fond du Lac, Dodge and

Washington counties

75% in Agricultural use

25% forest and wetlands

with homesteads and

small businesses

2 USGS 12-digit HUCs

040400030201

040400030203

The Tools: Data, Models & Monitoring

Edge of Field and In

stream

Event-based

Flow rates

Sediment (TDS, TSS)

Chloride

Nitrite + Nitrate,

Ammonium, Total

Kjeldahl N

Phosphorus (Dissolved

Reactive, Total)

Meteorological

Precipitation,

solar radiation,

wind,

temperature

Soil moisture

Field Conditions

Timing of Field

Management Activities

The Tools: Data, Models & Monitoring

The Tools: Data, Models & Monitoring

SnapPlus

Field-level farm planning tool and P Index calculator for Wisconsin

SWAT

Whole watershed-to-subbasin flow, sediment, and P loss model

APEX/Nutrient Tracking Tool

Field-level flow, sediment, and P loss

And others

USGS SPARROW

EPA BASINS

LiDAR

Use field-level models for decision making

Use watershed-level modeling for setting payment structure

Bridging field-level models to watershed models

Tying data from monitoring to models for validation and calibration

Will we be able to see/measure impact?

The Decision Making System

Work with farmers to discuss

current farm practices

Establish conservation practice

implementation scenarios

Analyze the costs and benefits of

the different options against the

phosphorus reduction

Farmer contracts for phosphorus

reduction payment

Producers engaged in the

decision making process

Potential practices that could be

implemented include:

4R nutrient management (rate,

source, timing, placement)

Cover crops

Contour cropping

Buffers and filter strips

Diversified rotations

Tillage method

The Demand Driver

Wisconsin Phosphorus Rules

Allows for downstream permit holders

to look upstream for nutrient reduction

Two* mechanisms available

Water Quality Trading

Generates credits for phosphorus

reduction to meet compliance

targets

Adaptive Management Option

(AMO)

Monitors water quality to evaluate

in stream phosphorus reduction

*Possible 3rd Option – point sources

paying counties for NPS reduction

Upstream reduction is more cost

effective than implementation

of treatment technologies

Win-win

Farmers better manage

nutrients, which can save

money without impacting yields

AND get additional farm

revenue

WPDES permit holders obtain

compliance for less cost, if the

AMO and WQT systems are

efficient

Pay-for-Performance could be

incorporated into Watershed

Adaptive Management Option,

WQT systems and/or USDA

conservation programs

The Upside

In the Milwaukee River Watershed, the Great Lakes

Basin, and beyond, P4P could…

Give regulated point sources a powerful new tool to implement watershed-

wide compliance programs, for example under Wisconsin’s Adaptive

Management Option (AMO)

Increase farmers profits by reducing P loss in the most cost-effective manner

possible

Increase number of organizations that are serving as aggregators of P loss

reductions and are working as technical service providers to farmers and

POTWs

Reduce P loads into the Great Lakes and other valuable water resources

Thank You

Sand County Foundation:

Joseph Britt

jbritt@sandcounty.net

www.sandcounty.net

www.agincentives.org

Winrock International: Jon Winsten, jwinsten@winrock.org

Delta Institute: William Schleizer, wschleizer@delta-institute.org