Multi‐LCC Mississippi / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (MRB/GHI)Integrating Basin‐Wide Challenges from 

Grassland Birds to Gulf Shrimp

LCC Contacts: Glen Salmon & Gwen White, ETPBR staffand dozens of other agencies & organizations in the 7 LCCs of the Mississippi River Basin

Funded by the multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17

A crisis is brewing on the prairie …High commodity prices are great for farmers…

Not so great for grassland birds and pollinators.From 2008‐2012, plowed under 7.2 million acres for crops. 

These are the highest rates of loss since the Dust Bowl.

Is this another Silent Spring?

…and downstream in the Big Rivers

As farmers retire over the next 20 years, about 400 million acres will change hands – some to international investors.

[all national cropland = 442 million acres]

From: Oakland Institute 2014. Down on the Farm. Wall Street: America’s New Farmer.

Climate Stationarity is Dead.When Illinois is East Texas…

How will Agriculture & Wildlife Adapt?

ʺUpstream is where you grew up, where you came from. Downstream is what you leave behind, your legacy."

-- Carol Armstrong, Los Angeles Mayor's office

Map of degree of human modification (darker areas)

1. Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC Rick Nelson

2. Upper Midwest & Great Lakes LCC John Rogner, Brad Potter

3. Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers LCC ‐ Glen Salmon, Gwen White4. Great Plains LCC – Nicole Athearn, James Broska5. Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC – Greg Wathen, Todd Jones‐Farrand6. Appalachian LCC – Jean Brennan7. Gulf Coast Prairie LCC – Bill Bartush, Cynthia Edwards, Ben Kahler

22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs)

7 span the Mississippi Basin 

Who are the typical Steering Committee members in a Midwest LCC (example below from ETPBR)?

Mission Possible:Restore & Connect Wildlife 

with People on the Rich Soils of a Functional 

Working Landscape 

Must be pragmatic, scalable/regional, 

collaborative, transparent, and value‐added to ongoing 

restoration efforts! 

What do we want to accomplish?

How can we target wildlife actions to also benefit water quality and agriculture?

p gThe LCD process guides adaptive management:

• Where are we now? Where are we headed? – assess current and projected landscape 

• Where do we want to be headed?            – define desired future conditions 

• How can we get there most efficiently?    – weigh & select strategies to align actions

• Where do we focus actions?– map high priority opportunities on the landscape

• How could drivers change the outcome?– model scenarios and tradeoffs 

• What if we’re missing something?– implement, evaluate and refine strategies

Gulf Hypoxia Initiative ‐ Components1) What to Do? Fact Sheets for 14 

High Impact Ag Conservation Practices 

2) Where? Online Mapping Tool to target conservation investments 

3) Why? Estimation of multi‐sector benefits 

4) How? Demonstration projects for emerging practices 

5) Evaluation? Multi‐sector landscape‐scale monitoring system

6) Research? Future directions

“Focused action is going to be more inspiring than perfect planning.” –Eric Schenck, DU / ETPBR LCC Steering Committee

How can we align & target our actions through a “Collective Impact” approach?

1. Common agenda: Seek out and convene a network of change agents who want to explore solutions to critical large-scale problems.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Develop a systematic portfolio of research that can’t be done alone because of scope or scale.

4. Backbone organization: Match new sources that can contribute resources and training on emerging issues and technologies.

5. Communicate: Credit, promote and celebrate the great work being done by partners!

2. Shared measurement: Design accessible systems for targeting, measuring and comparing outcomes.

Who are the multi‐sector stakeholders that are involved? Universities:• Kansas State University• Mississippi State University• Ohio State University• Louisiana University Marine Consortium• University of Illinois • University of Minnesota• University Wisconsin‐MadisonNGOs:• Agricultural Watershed Institute• Mississippi River Network • Ducks Unlimited• Enviroscapes Ecological Consulting• Fishers & Farmers Fish Habitat Partnership• Gulf Hypoxia Task Force• Illinois Council on Best Management Practices• KGregg Consulting • Lower Mississippi River Committee• Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance• Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource 

Association • National Wildlife Federation• Natural Land Institute • Oak Ridge National Laboratory• Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership• Practical Farmers of Iowa• The Conservation Fund• The Nature Conservancy• Wildlife Management Institute

State agencies:• Indiana DNR• Iowa Dept of Agriculture• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency• Missouri Dept of Conservation• Nebraska Game & Parks Commission• Tennessee Wildlife Resources AgencyFederal agencies:• Army Corps of Engineers• Dept of Energy• Dept of Transportation• EPA (OWOW, Hypoxia Task Force)• Fish & Wildlife Service  (ES, Partners, EA, NCTC)• USDA Forest Service• US Geological Survey (NAWQA, HTF)• National Park Service• NOAA (HTF)• South Central Climate Science Center• USDA Farm Service Agency• USDA National Institute of Food & Agriculture• USDA NRCS (AR,  IN, TN, MRBI)

50 people in Memphis.

Over 250 in the contact list and counting…

A YEAR‐LONG FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION CULMINATEDIN A WORKSHOP IN MEMPHIS, TN, AUG 2014

2014 MRB/GHI Decision Making Workshop Report(i.e., “The Memphis Report”) identifies: 

• 5 Ecological Systems & 5 Farm Production Systems

• Species that may indicate progress in each system

• Alternative Actions by Farming System

• Prioritized list of Cost‐Effective Strategies

• Initial list of barriers, science needs & programs

WHAT IS THE COMMON GOAL?

We are seeking broad consensus on howand where to best design and implement conservation delivery throughout the Mississippi Basin  in a way that benefits wildlife, while simultaneously reducing the nutrient loading to Gulf hypoxia and balancing agricultural interests.

What are the shared multi‐sector objectives?

Decrease Gulf Hypoxia

Increase Wildlife Benefits

Forested

 Riparian

Prairie

Bottom

land

 Ha

rdwoo

d

Increase Agricultural Productivity

Decrease Regulatory 

Uncertainty

Increase Net Returns

Mod

ified

 Headw

ater

Decrease Implementation 

costs

Species (abundance, life history 

or occupancy)

Decrease Risk

 

Ave $/acre

Ave $/acreSoil health

Inputcosts

Water quantity

Local nutrient load

Watershed nutrient load

Surface water

Ground water

N & P load

Increase or maintain productivity (ecosystem services)

Maxim

ize Resilien

ce

What are the shared performance metrics?

Objective –Increase Wildlife Benefits

Forested RiparianMid‐sized Streams

Prairie(Grazing)

Mainstem Floodplains

American woodcockAmerican redstartBelted kingfisherBlue‐gray gnatcatcherRed‐eyed vireoBlack redhorsePugnose minnowRiver redhorseShovelnose sturgeonSmallmouth bassCopper‐bellied watersnakeMusselsCyanobacteriaMacroinvertebrate IBIFish IBI

Acadian flycatcher(forest breeding songbirds)Cerulean warbler Kentucky warblerProthonotary WarblerRed‐headed WoodpeckerSwainson’s warblerSwallow‐tailed kiteTree or Barn SwallowsWood Duck (wintering waterfowl)Wood thrushAlligator garMudpuppyMusselsPalaemonetes shrimp

Blue‐winged tealBobolinkDickcisselGadwallGrasshopper sparrowHenslow’s sparrowHorned larkKilldeerLoggerhead shrike MeadowlarksUpland sandpiperPrairie volePlains pocket gopherMonarch butterflyTopeka shinerFloristic Quality Index

Modified Headwaters 

(Row Crop Fields)

American golden ploverBlue‐winged tealLeopard frogCrawfish frogBlackside darterBrown troutCreek chubJohnny darterSculpinTopeka shinerMonarch butterflyPollinators (native bees)Wild riceMacroinvertebrate IBIFish IBI

Which Focal Species indicate outcomes for these multi‐sector conservation practices?

What is the relationship between potential Actionsand leverage points for achieving Objectives?

Example Influence Diagram: Modified Headwaters - Hydrology

Terrestrial Species

Aquatic Species

Gulf Hypoxia

Agricultural Production

Regulatory Uncertainty

Terrestrial Habitat Quantity

Aquatic Habitat Quantity

NutrientsSubsurface Tile

Drainage

Modified Hydrology

Erosion

Flashy Hydrograph

Runoff

Channelization

Head-cutting

Land use

Sediment

Surface inlets

Drainage Management

SurfaceDrainage (ditching wetlands)

Bank erosion

Wetland restoration

Stream restoration

Bed De-stabilization

Acquisition/easement

Two-stage ditches

What is an example of a multi-benefit conservation practice in a row crop production system?

Drainage Water Management - American Golden-Plover

Which Actions are most cost‐effective for achieving Objectives? – evaluated by practitioners.Headwaters & Working Lands Practices

Effectiveness (1‐high; 5‐low) Cost (1‐low; 5‐high) Combined Ranks

Mean Std Dev Rank Mean Std Dev

Rank

Cropland for invertebrates

3.20 1.40 3 1.67 0.71 3 6

Drainage layout for management

2.67 0.98 2 1.83 0.83 4 6

In‐field prairie STRIPS 4.00 8 1.00 1 9Soil health 3.58 1.62 5 1.75 0.75 5 10Constructed wetlands 2.50 1 5.00 10 11Oxbow restoration 5.00 10 1.00 2 12Alternative crops (i.e., biomass)

3.62 0.96 6 1.92 0.76 6 12

Drainage water management

3.38 1.19 4 2.54 0.52 9 13

Buffers 3.92 1.19 7 1.92 0.49 7 14Habitat restoration 4.42 1.16 9 2.50 0.52 8 17Nutrient criteria 5.00 11 5.00 11 22

Strategies to Achieve Multiple Objectives

Riparian ForestMid‐sized Streams

PrairiesGrazing Lands

Floodplain Ag Lower Miss Valley (Cotton & Rice)

Low cost / effectiveBuffers in headwatersSoil healthMedium costBank stabilizationLivestock fencingHigh costRestore connectivityHydrologic restoration

RemeanderingSediment removalInfiltrationDam removal 

EasementsAcquisition 

Wetlands

Low cost / effectiveVegetation diversityConvert marginal land

Medium costWetland reforestationRegulate diversionsInvasive controlHigh costRe‐open channelsDredge wetlands Acquisition (forest)Water diversionConnectivityMarket drivers

Low cost / effectiveConversion incentiveGrazing BMPsMedium costPrescribed fireGrassed wetland bufferDrought mgtPrairie STRIPSHigh costCompensate servicesRiparian habitatRestore savanna/oaksNative seed mix

Headwaters & Corn & Soybean 

Row Crops

What was the initial list of highly effective practices, arrayed by relative cost?

Low cost / effectiveSoil healthCrop land for inverts  Drainage lay outOxbow restorationNo tillCrop rotationMedium costBuffersAlt crops (biomass)Cover cropsNative contour STRIPSStream fencing

High costHabitat restorationDrainage water mgtTreatment wetlandsNutrient standards

Floodplain  AgMidwest

(Corn & Beans)

Low cost / effectiveVeg restorationMedium costVegetation controlLevee breaksRemove tilesStop log structureCarp gratesReforestationHigh costConnectivityBackwatersControl structures

During 2015, Work Teams Developed Fact Sheets for 13 High Impact Conservation Practices

• What & Where – Which species respond to each 

practice with multi‐sector benefits?

– Do we have population objectives and monitoring?

– Will redesign of the practicesmaximize multiple benefits?

• Who & Why– Which programs implement, 

research and/or design these practices?

– What are the socioeconomic implications?

• How– How do we deliver this 

information to programs?

How do we Scale Down the spatial analysis for Local Delivery?Stakeholders Identify Which Habitats & Practices 

Resonate in their Area of InterestGrassed Wetland BuffersPrairie STRIPS in Row Crops

Putting a Plan into Action:Delivery Tools Design & Research Forum

March 1‐3, 2016, Indianapolis

Purpose: Reconvene 40‐80 multi‐sector participants to examine the research outcomes, spatial analysis, monitoring data, and other tools to determine: 1) How can we immediately 

influence program targeting?2) What further work is needed to 

integrate models & research?

Design & Research Forum Objectives & ProcessInvitation to 282 interested researchers & managers.Anticipating a working group of 40-80 people.

Process: Breakouts & group work to focus on key implementation questions/actions.

Implementation Questions organized within Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) to determine next steps and required resources:

1) Planning -- What are the national-level program and policy barriers to implementing these 13 practices?

2) Design -- How do we format the 13 agricultural practices and spatial analysis as an accessible toolto drive targeted investment in existing programs?

3) Delivery -- Which critical emerging practices require demonstration sites in target watersheds to test design and evaluate cross-sector cost and impacts?

4) Monitoring -- How can we integrate Mississippi basin-level cross-sector monitoring to track change relative to large-scale drivers?

1) Planning ‐‐What are the national‐level program and policy barriers to implementing these practices?

2) Design ‐‐ How do we present the spatial analysis as an accessible tool to drive how, what and where to 

align actions in existing programs?

3) Delivery ‐‐Which critical emerging practices require demonstration sites in target watersheds to test design and evaluate cross‐sector cost and impacts?

4) Monitoring ‐‐ How can we integrate Mississippi basin‐level cross‐sector monitoring to examine landscape‐scale impacts on all three sectors and assess resilience to future change?

Research Questions for future exploration:What do we need to know about climate change?

Impacts on wildlife Species vulnerability – range shifts, timing of pollination? River and prairie system hydrology & termperature? How to design landscape corridors for future climate conditions? What to use for performance metrics (end points of success)?Impacts on land use Agricultural production systems (choice of crops & livestock)? Water resource demands & infrastructure? Renewable energy demands & opportunities? Ecosystem services from wildlife conservation (pollination, soils)?

Gulf Hypoxia Initiative ‐ Components1) What to Do? Fact Sheets for 14 

High Impact Ag Conservation Practices 

2) Where? Online Mapping Tool to target conservation investments 

3) Why? Estimation of multi‐sector benefits 

4) How? Demonstration projects for emerging practices 

5) Evaluation? Multi‐sector landscape‐scale monitoring system

6) Research? Future directions

“Focused action is going to be more inspiring than perfect planning.” –Eric Schenck, DU / ETPBR LCC Steering Committee

Collaborative Power of Multiple LCCs pulling conservation partners together in a 

Collective  Impact approach

Contact us: Staff of 7 LCCs in the MRBGlen Salmon, Coordinator

Gwen White, PhDwww.tallgrassprairielcc.org

Conservation agencies canpiece together a landscape 

that works for wildlife, water quality and people.