Multi-LCC Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia ... Aug 2014 Worksho… · Mississippi River /...

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop (Multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17) Draft Notes – Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop, Aug 12‐14, Memphis, TN of 79

*7LCCsacrosstheMississippiRiverBasin:Plains&PrairiePotholesLCC,UpperMidwest&GreatLakesLCC,EasternTallgrassPrairie&BigRiversLCC,AppalachianLCC,GreatPlainsLCC,GulfCoastPrairieLCC,GulfCoastPlains&OzarksLCCwithworkshopfundingfromanLCCNetworkGrant

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN / GULF HYPOXIA LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION & MODEL REFINEMENT WORKSHOP

DRAFT NOTES Location (with online connection for off‐site participants):

Ducks Unlimited, Inc., National Headquarters, One Waterfowl Way, Memphis, TN 38120 Dates: Tuesday, August 12, 10am – Thursday, August 14, 3:00pm (Monday – travel day) Contacts: LCCs ‐ Glen Salmon ([email protected]; 812‐334‐4261 x1211)

Arrangements ‐ Gwen White ([email protected]; 812‐212‐7455) SDM ‐ Max Post van der Burg ([email protected]; 701‐253‐5574)

Background: Planning Team Preparation Reports (draft models); Gregory & Keeney 2002 (overview of SDM process); Kroeger, et al (scaling up for Gulf hypoxia effects). Day 1 (Aug 12, 10am‐5pm): Policy & Program Implementation Decision makers who influence policies and programs will evaluate implementation of technical models, identify strategies that are feasible for implementation, and construct a collective impact approach to collaboration. Decision makers were welcome to stay for Days 2‐3, but may wish to be represented by program and technical staff. Days 2‐3 (Aug 13‐14, 8:30am‐3:00pm): Structured Decision Making Model Refinement Technical expert sessions to continue developing Rapid Prototype Models that identify:

What are the criteria for selecting focal habitats and wildlife species that are affected by management actions in agricultural working lands across the Mississippi Basin?

How would you refine conceptual models to emphasize species and habitats which appeal to farming and ranching interests?

What applied research in ecology and human dimensions is needed to value and inform selection, siting and adoption of conservation practices?

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop (Multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17) Draft Notes – Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop, Aug 12‐14, Memphis, TN of 79 PARTICIPANTS (see affiliations in Appendix) Present:

Gray Anderson Steve Ashby Bill Bartush Eugene Braig Sarah Carlson Bob Clevenstine Greg Conover Megan Cross Tom Davenport Cynthia Edwards Gregg Elliott Steve John Doug Helmers Donovan Henry Andy Kimmel Lyn Kirschner Ed Lambert Kerry Leigh Alexis Londo Kraig McPeek Nancy Rabalais Susan Rupp Glen Salmon Sherri Shoults Kelly Srigley‐Werner Ryan Stockwell Mike Sullivan Pat Turman Greg Wathen Carol Williams Meghan Wilson Mike Woodside Shannon Zezula

Facilitators: Max Post van der Burg Michael Schwartz Gwen White

Online: Will Allen Wayne Anderson Laura Christianson Scott Davis Skip Hyberg Yetta Jager Kristen Johnson Heidi Keuler Ted LaGrange Kate Pinkerton Brian Smith John Sowl Robert Swanson Kimberlyn Velasquez



TableofContentsDay 1: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 ............................................................................................................ 5

Welcome, Workshop Process & Overview ................................................................................................... 5

Collective Impact ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Overview of MRB/Gulf Hypoxia SDM Draft Models ................................................................................. 6

Fundamental Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 7

Agricultural Means Objectives ................................................................................................................ 10

Spatial analysis & landscape design tools ................................................................................................... 14

Alternative actions ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Barriers / Constraints .................................................................................................................................. 22

Day 2: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 .................................................................................................... 24

Implementation & Model Refinement ....................................................................................................... 24

Objectives Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................... 25

Performance metrics............................................................................................................................... 25

Means‐Ends Diagrams ............................................................................................................................ 31

Decision Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 32

Decision Problem Statement (final draft) ................................................................................................... 36

Fundamental Objectives & Scope ........................................................................................................... 36

Influence Diagrams for Focal Systems ........................................................................................................ 38

Strategy Generation Table ...................................................................................................................... 45

Uncertainty & Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................................. 55

Gaps in knowledge (Science Needs) ....................................................................................................... 55

Day 3: Thursday, August 14, 2014 ........................................................................................................ 57

Consequences Tables .............................................................................................................................. 58

Weighting & Trade‐Offs .......................................................................................................................... 59

Strategy Generation Tables .................................................................................................................... 60

Collaboration Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 63

Consensus Messaging ............................................................................................................................. 64

Audiences ................................................................................................................................................ 66

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop (Multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17) Draft Notes – Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop, Aug 12‐14, Memphis, TN of 79 High performing watersheds as potential end users .............................................................................. 68

Closing comments & next steps .................................................................................................................. 69

Workshop Planning Team and Participant Lists ......................................................................................... 72

Planning Team ......................................................................................................................................... 72

Memphis Participants ............................................................................................................................. 73

Memphis Workshop Agenda ...................................................................................................................... 76

Presentations and Map Service Products ................................................................................................... 79

Presentation: Workshop overview and SDM components ..................................................................... 79

Presentation: Internet Map Services (The Conservation Fund) ............................................................. 79

Map Service Data Inventory .................................................................................................................... 79

Data Acquisition Status ........................................................................................................................... 79

Web Map Service Users Guide ................................................................................................................ 79


Day1:Tuesday,August12,2014 – Implementation & Collaboration Anticipated results and output from discussions: Understanding of decision analysis models. Agreement on collaborative approach needed to advance implementation. Timeline for accomplishing further consultation and collaborative work. Agreement on technical resources (tools and staff) that will be needed and which decision makers and stakeholder viewpoints will be required in the future. Preparation for technical involvement in determining feasibility, stakeholder involvement and model refinement. Small groups were organized by expertise and geography to bring a range of perspectives. NOTES

Welcome,WorkshopProcess&Overview Logistics (Gwen White)

o Snacks, Neotropical migrant grassland Bird‐Friendly Coffee, lunch at noon. o Sort into tables for discussions in room today. o Facility tour of Ducks Unlimited Headquarters will be tomorrow at noon.

Welcome from Ducks Unlimited (Scott Yaich, DU) o Clean Water Act – Justice Kennedy indicated the Gulf hypoxia issue as one the federal

government should be involved in. Reviewing jurisdiction of wetlands and connectivity with waters of the United States through significant nexus to downstream waters. Hard to make case on scattered wetlands. Can make case on a watershed basis to protect wetlands. Agencies may make comments on the proposed rule. Science needed to influence regulatory protections.

Review of workshop goals (Glen Salmon, ETPBR LCC) o Working across political landscapes, not stopping at the state border but at a common

table with others. LCCs work in a big area with a group of states, agencies, and groups. o Focal areas in the ETPBR LCC on wildlife, water quality, agriculture as it relates to Gulf

hypoxia and downstream impacts. o Thinking about strategy and resources in the state agencies working with federal

agencies. Must have a broader vision to determine what to work on, be more strategic with resources on the ground.

o Have been working on SDM process for about a year. Is concept solid? Finding ways to work together? How do we identify opportunity areas? What wildlife? How to do the work? With whom? Inviting more people to help us work through this. Not reinventing the wheel.

o At Joint Venture meeting last week. Suggested the chair is “too big” like Goldilocks. Think we can make important decisions and advances.

CollectiveImpact ‐ Provides a framework for diverse groups to work together on large‐scale complex problems.

o Common Agenda ‐ Shared vision for change including a common understanding of the

problem and a joint approach.

o Shared Measurement ‐ Collect data and measure results consistently to hold each other

accountable.

o Mutually Reinforcing Activities – Individualized expertise coordinated through a

mutually reinforcing plan of action.

o Continuous Communication ‐ Build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate

common motivation.


o Backbone Organization – Coordination for the entire initiative among participating

organizations and agencies.

Participant introductions (see list in Appendix)

OverviewofMRB/GulfHypoxiaSDMDraftModels (Max Post van der Burg, USGS)

o Reviewed components of Structured Decision Making (SDM) o Questions about process

Lots of other side benefits that might be more local, minimizing algal blooms, recreation, human water use, etc.?

Local water quality issue is part of the model for benefits to aquatic wildlife. Don’t have the component about local community effects (and whether those.

Yield as crop yield versus cash in pocket? A lot of programs are money driven.

Farmers are motivated by money, but also how effective they are at farming. Money may not be the best measure of that aspect. Did not make a decision. This is a draft.

We need help with that. Consider those who work with USDA and agriculture programs. Real water will be carried when we deliver a tool box. Those will look different across the spectrum of the watershed. What do the conceptual models have to look like to use policy influence to change the tool box? Significant leap. Iowa Soybean individual said farming today is not sustainable, but what do we need as new tools for the future? Working for clean water or pheasant habitat, we don’t care which, but we want tools in a landscape conservation design.

o What is the right word to influence policy to make this a reality? Each landowner will be different.

Need to look at the political, economic and social context. Farming in our region is big corporations as owners. Most family farmers don’t own land, but lease and are not the decision makers. Large landowners do.

How much change and time do we want to spend on refining this?

This is a draft for people to react to. State a different way or take it off the table?

That box represented that we did not want to spend energy on something that is not realistic, that a landowner won’t do. That box can be changed but is important for reality. Policy may be changed but there are millions of landowners who will make the decisions. Must be vested in reality.

“Minimize impacts to producers” is something we’ve used for decades. Certain frustration with pace of change or lack of change, particularly with ultimate goal of hypoxia. Reality of what a producer would accept or be encouraged to do, but as we are mindful of our rhetoric, why is that not “Maximize benefits to producers”? Not just being reactive but encouraging change.

Try to maximize something – both wildlife and economic benefit.


Venn diagrams for maximizing wildlife and benefits to producers, farmers are not a monoculture. Might be for some to minimize impacts might resonate, but benefits might benefit to others who own and rent.

Farmers and producers were asking for technology for monitoring fields. They were tired of hearing they are causing this, but want to know what they can do to fix it. Using cover crops, soil health

Alternative practices?

If we are serious about moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy and cellulosic biofuels, could drive more perennial crops as a paradigm shift similar to after World War II when we separated cattle from the land to feed lots. Could have significant benefits to wildlife, ag, carbon, soils.

Not really in “maximize” or minimize category, but diversification of crop types. Increased biodiversity leads to resilience.

Three boxes for producers. How does this slide relate to the “Farming System Choices” slide?

This is an example related to another project, but we could look at it as an example of trying to promote different farming systems. What is keeping farmers from adopting these systems? May have cultural reasons.

They need markets.

“Maximizing yield” is frequently used as a measurable, fundamental objective. In alternative cropping systems, still use maximizing yield as a reasonable measure for motivating.

Minimizing regulatory uncertainty

Objective that would encompass new possibilities, new markets? Added and subtracted net returns Key is to keep water in the soil. Water is the transport mech. Keep it on the

land and the nutrients will stay there. Bioenergy liaison, working with industry and producers. Reiterate financial risk

being a key component. Purpose is to create umbrella structure, then later give details. There are risk factors beyond markets and weather, such as pests, disease and

weeds. o Summary

Risk – financial, markets, weather, as well as pests, disease and weeds. New possibilities, new markets Yield Regulatory uncertainty Resilience ‐ diversification of crop types, biodiversity. Both wildlife and economic benefit. Water in the soil, retain nutrients.

FundamentalObjectives – Reflections on fundamental objectives, scope and time frame for the MRB/GH Initiative.

o Purpose of objectives – To determine what we want to advocate for, then implement.


Models underlie the relationships between actions and objectives. Can be tested in adaptive management approach. When thinking about objectives, you are representing values by which you will make assessments. Minimizing risk is a means.

Key is to have consistent message, so wildlife or US Fish & Wildlife isn’t saying something different from USDA. Listen to farmers on this sector, which will be very valuable. From the example:

Fundamental – Maximize Productivity o Increase Net Returns o Decrease Risk o Improve Drinking Water Quality o Improve Aquatic Ecosystems o Reduce Soil Erosion

Is each group trying to drill down to Fundamental Objectives past the Means Objectives? Is each group trying to understand from a producer perspective? [e.g., groups are: Grazing lands; Floodplain forest; Corn/Beans; Rice/Cotton]

Over what period of time?

A single year’s net returns may not be the best indicator. What is the length of a loan on a tractor? What is the business cycle.

Crop production is one year. Equipment varies over number of years. Factor one year in when they buy equipment. May lease for 2 years. Rice tears up a combine fast. A lot of variability. Some leases for 5 years, others 10. A producer may lease for only 1 year.

If you only look at return from corn in that year, looks great. Oats may not, but when you grow 120 lbs nitrogen with cover crop, that increases future productivity. Money you make in a future year has to go back to diversification.

Economic benefits may take time. May get greater yield than status quo over a period of time.

“Sustainability” may need to be “Maximize Productivity” as nitrogen done in a rotational way can sell cover crops.

Maximizing productivity may be part of net returns. Don’t lose “sustainability.”

o Environmental objectives may come in separately. o Clean water is a product of a farming system. Get away from

“ecological services” which is language that won’t resonate with a producer.

o Not just “agricultural productivity” but “all productivity” o Rhetoric of “Maximizing benefits” rather than about

“minimizing” something. See producers as producing variety of goods and services of benefit on farm as well as intergenerationally. That is the umbrella for other things.

What does that “productivity” mean? o Butterflies, water cleaned up, soil health, etc. o Don’t want productivity to be confused with Maximized Yield.


How would producers talk about their interests? o What if that particular producer wasn’t the source for a water

quality problem?

Producers understand that they are mining their soil, but they aren’t encouraged to do otherwise. Pollinators for almond growers also benefit through yield and productivity.

o If it helps us inform a decision, why not put them in this basket? o That is a means to an end, putting more pollinators on the

landscape. But if pollinators can increase productivity, that is our goal? Pollinators can be a means objective. Pollination is part

of the model as a means to an end. In Wisconsin, raising honey bees is a huge industry for

pollination services.

How do producers of pollinator services track what they do? Don’t measure on the basis of how many bees they have, but on what they produce.

o Pollinators are of interest to producers. o Yes, but if they are a means of achieving productivity and we

assess the outcome, that’s double counting.

As strategy matures and gets into implementation, that may be something we need to message about. Agriculture has a major role.

o If you are producing pollinators, you are reducing your costs. Same with cover crop to produce nitrogen, reducing fertilizer costs, which then becomes a benefit.

Online input on objectives

Family farming ‐ Keep the family farm in the family, my neighbor is currently converting his dairy operation to all corn/soybeans because his family is unwilling or unable to maintain the farm as a dairy operation.

Resource Stewardship ‐ This term encompasses commodity production as well as the long‐term sustainable maintenance of the means of production, namely, the agricultural landscape (water, soil, air, energy, together with its related plants and animals). Stewardship is a powerful and recognized quality within the agricultural community (including ranches).

Establishing Ecosystem Resilience for Our Life Support Systems ‐ encompass all of the individual focus areas under consideration, yet would set the stage for garnering much broader political (popular) support for these individual foci by involving everyone in their potential successful realization. To be sure, we still need to define the details for each of these areas as we are doing. By taking a holistic view, however, we address almost all aspects of these earth systems and their needs.

Will use these ideas as Means Objectives and/or in the Conceptual Models.


AgriculturalMeansObjectives ‐ Topics that may be developed into Means Objectives, organized by Agricultural Production System include:

o Corn & Soybeans – emphasized human element, marketing to get buy‐in Productivity Time scale Edge or in‐field practices (in‐field more likely to change producers) Wildlife species, including effect on urban populations to get city buy‐in Messaging for water quality practices – sometimes unclear, may not have water

quality benefits are promoted Resilience to market changes

o Grazing Lands

Multiple year – Issues and scales vary dependent on ecological region. Minimize invasives in grazing lands – Eastern red cedar, lespedeza, Johnson

grass, getting fire back Maximize sustainability in terms of production – multiple years to decades /

individual land manager Minimize drought impacts – diversification, crop insurance policies, improved

efficiency, diversification, drought management plans, wetlands, local burn bans are impediment – multiple year (3‐5) / local land managers

Maximize daily weight gain of cattle – PFW, EQIP, ACEP practices, GRP, quality of feed, genetics, water management (riparian) – annual/seasonal / individual land manager

Maximize water quality and quantity – deep‐rooted native plants that are more drought tolerant, policy to focus resources on strategic watersheds – multiple years and scales / watershed management or individuals

Income streams – wildlife‐friendly or natural branded beef, diversify income, profitability

Riparian management/protection, water quality, animal health, Army Corps “tree screen” policy – multi‐year, large scale (continental)

Animal health Alternative markets – carbon, wildlife‐friendly grasses Reduced transaction costs – time and effort associated with changing

production practices and management schemes. Impediments – oil lobby, ethanol policy, biofuel/green energy subsidies/policy,

certification of “green” products, EPA pesticide projections (?)

o Riparian and floodplain forest – maximize productivity Non‐agricultural uses that may impact nutrient loading

Golf courses

Municipal water treatment, combined sewers, non‐point, septics (failing)

Agricultural uses

Enhancing nutrient cycling (disruption of levees)

Timber management – public, private lands, pulp production

Alternative cropping to convert row crop land to other uses with broader range of benefits.


Maximize productivity (measures)

Annual recreational / hunting leases– measurable annually

Long term sustainable activities sustainable timber – yield over long term

Regionally aggregate to take advantage of carbon markets – measurable over long term

o Rice

Water management as key driver with both economic and environmental aspect. Irrigation water return providing:

Waterfowl habitat

Crop production

Greenhouse gas

Groundwater protection

Water quality

Water retention

Economics Soil health Nutrient & pest management Stream buffers Field borders ‐ pollinators Fence rows Crop diversity, including cover crops

o Cotton

Organic matter Water retention Nutrient & pest management Crop diversity, including cover crops

o Meaning of terms “Maximize” or “Minimize”?

Can optimize but not maximize everything. Pareto optimization – Can’t gain more performance on one axis without

sacrificing performance on the other. Looking at the best you can do across all measures without fully maximizing one of them.

Minimize/maximize is just the direction of preference – “maximize” To general public, how clear is that?

Increase or Decrease mean exactly the same thing mathematically. I believe that we stand on a slippery slope when we place our focus on

"maximizing productivity".

I believe that I understand where the suggestion is coming from, but this objective could allow the "agri‐business" community to use this term as an excuse for pull out all stops to simply maximum productivity (which generally translates as economic), as the expense of other resources. The meaning of the term "Productivity" needs to be clarified and identified.


o Differentiate marginal and highly productive land The nature of landscape based land management brings into focus to the need

to recognize the opportunities available from differentiating marginal and highly productive agricultural land.

Rather than treat the entire landscape as homogenous, it is useful to divide highly productive areas from marginal and sensitive acres.

Moving corn and soybeans off highly productive soils in the upper Midwest where there has been substantial infrastructure investment in drainage may call for a BMP strategy. Those areas that are sensitive such as riparian areas may be best managed and compensated for wildlife benefits.

Marginal acres managed and compensated for less intensive agricultural uses and ecological services.

The best soils and weather in this region is optimal for producing row crops. While there are limits given that not all soils are highly productive and some areas are environmentally fragile or vulnerable.

We will need a landscape with greater diversity than has currently evolved; that is more productive where it is safe, redirected to wildlife or perennial energy crops where food crops are risky environmentally and provides for an overall landscape that is visually and biologically diverse and liveable.

o Do these agricultural producer objectives capture the mutual interests?

Fundamental Objectives

Increase or maintain productivity o Increase Wildlife (species or populations)

Specific species

Increase pollinators o Increase Ag/Commodity Production

Increase net returns

Increase pollinators Decrease risks Increase Water Quality

Decrease Implementation Costs

Comments:

Increasing Water Quality is part of agricultural productivity. Still wrangling with idea of what is “productivity”?

o Could say the same thing about wildlife. Could make a difference in wildlife abundance and diversity.

o What if you converted a farm into prairie or forest? Would still increase productivity, restoring vital

functions of soil profile Would sacrifice “economic productivity.”

o Increase Commodity Production – so that is separated from other goods and services for the measures.


Might be cases where Net Returns would still increase with wildlife species, especially over longer time scales.

o Could still track that with these. If you’re going to talk about productivity in general sense of parcel, could produce commodities, wildlife and water quality.

o When you get to the trade‐offs, you wouldn’t have any.

Lumping all productivity? Need to segregate other commodities to get at the audiences.

o Another piece of messaging is that this might be a structure that works well for us, but doesn’t provide the overarching understanding of productivity.

Implementation Costs (Efficiency) o Decrease overall costs or more acres managed for same amount

of money? o The idea of farming more efficiently is likely to gain traction.

Whether in the form of precision farming practices, more efficient management of water, nutrient use efficiency, farmers will increasingly adopt efficiency as a management metric. History has told us that an increase in “efficiency” is an

invitation to plant more acres and convert grasses or hedge rows into row crop.

o We don’t know how much money we need, how much is sufficient? Including costs gives you the ability to play with budget scenarios. With more money, do exactly what you want.

Increasing productivity of current crops that we already grow. How to increase alternative crops? Objective that supports innovators or pioneers who will demonstrate perennial crops with multiple benefits for water quality and wildlife?

o Will revisit objectives tomorrow and get more specific about what we are measuring. Can you treat cropping systems as alternatives?

o Incentives may encourage alternatives.

o What are the measurable attributes for these objectives? Will need definitions to describe the assumptions.

Does that become more clear with assignment of metrics? o May be wood, corn, beef, but producer may describe it

differently.

o Means Objectives for Farming System Choices – The group reviewed an example of drivers for farming system choices that had been prepared in another workshop with landowners and agreed that they were generally applicable to this problem.


Increase agricultural productivity (sustainability)

Increase net returns o Increase crop yield o Decrease production costs

Decrease risk o Decrease exposure to market changes o Decrease negative impacts of weather

Increase resilience

Decrease regulatory uncertainty

Spatialanalysis&landscapedesigntools (Michael Schwartz, TCF) o Michael presented map layers in an online tool prepared to support the MRB/GH

initiative. The group asked the following questions: o Can NAIP Imagery be incorporated into map service?

ESRI or USGS EROS imagery is higher resolution than NAIP. Adding the USGS EROS imagery to the mapping service could be useful as it complements the ESRI imagery in terms of seasonality i.e. leaf on/leaf off.

o Can we narrow down the scope of implementation? See “Delineation of Implementation Focus Areas” section below.

o Are maps exportable to pull them into other uses? Maps can be printed or exported in PDF, JPEG, or PNG format. Data will be provided in a format usable by most GIS software. There may be

some restrictions on some data layers, but most will be downloadable. o On the EPA regional watershed priorities, was that consistently done within each EPA

region? EPA priority watersheds are available only for EPA regions 4 & 6. Insufficient

documentation exists to answer this question.

o Worry about consistency of how they are relayed, especially by lumping them into larger scale. Are they really equivalent to pull these various layers in? While we agree that is important to know exactly why particular watersheds

were identified as priorities, a detailed analysis would be a significant undertaking. The same issue could be said to apply to conservation focus areas. Considerable effort was made to ensure that the watershed priority areas were relevant to water quality or aquatic habitat.

o Is data to the HUC12 or just HUC8? Since the HUC‐8 scale was agreed upon by the workgroup as most suitable for

identifying focus areas, and as most of the watershed‐related data is at the

HUC‐8 scale, all data available at smaller scales was aggregated to the HUC‐8

scale for the sake of consistency. Once focus areas are identified it may be

more feasible to work with smaller HUC’s. Some of the data available at the

HUC‐12 scale include the Kansas WRAPS, State Nutrient Reduction Strategy, and

Mississippi River Basin Initiative watersheds.

o Can you create a map layer to show what principal practices are being used in those watersheds?


Yes, if we had the data. Actual locations of some practices may be available in certain areas or there may be datasets where practices have been aggregated to the county level in some areas.

o Data layers, overlaying and finding out priority layers, who plans to do that? This is an example of one potential process to identify water quality focus areas.

How to identify wildlife focus areas is species‐specific. o Could you layer land ownership, farmer‐owned land as opposed to rented?

While we could identify landowners that own large amounts of land, with the parcel data we have, it is not possible to identify which parcels are leased. We recognize that land ownership patterns are an important part of the social dimension of this effort.

o In following this discussion, return to viewing the situation from a "systems approach", wherein we could (in this case for "agriculture") sustainably maximize commodity productivity in harmony with the preservation of ecosystem infrastructure resilience (including its diversity, health, and functions) while promoting sustainable human development. We know we can’t do everything everywhere. Want to figure out where on the

map we could potentially spend additional time and energy. Exercise to find areas with existing boots on ground and detail at that level. We as community decide where there are additional assets, energies, funding. This is just to see where it goes.

No aspect of nature is "maximized" to the long term determent of the whole; that is a human concept. I believe that by taking this type of "systems approach" we could address most of our concerns involving all of these fundamental objectives and foci.

We then need to determine (as we are attempting) what is needed, from an individual resource stewardship perspective, to bring each of these resource concerns (prairies, agriculture, floodplains, forests, water ‐ both surface and ground) into a sustainable state of ecosystem resilience.

This "systems approach" will also address the issues of scale, location, and seasonality, in my opinion.

Alternativeactions (Programs & Actions) ‐ Small groups based on geography and agricultural production system (self‐facilitated)

o What can we do to put more conservation on the ground in these areas? Which fish & wildlife conservation actions coincide with these focal areas (4

systems and geography) that also would have the most benefit for water quality and agricultural productivity?

How do scale, location and seasonality affect the opportunities to provide multiple benefits from these conservation actions?

o Including spatial scale, timing – annual or long‐term enrollment, seasonality

Not bound by current policy or feasibility. The implementation of diverse organic farms would provide many benefits to

water resources, building soil fertility and establishing soil health, promote pollinators, and reduce the need for and expense of synthetic chemical


applications. It would also strongly contribute to overall environmental health. In addition, farming could take place on appropriate lands/soils.

o List of agricultural conservation practices by Production System. Corn & soybeans

Oxbow Restoration in IA (Restoring the floodplain)

Wetlands at the end of tile lines (1‐2%) of field like the Mackinaw Project (TNC project in IL)

Stream buffers

Contour strips >3% slope, >20% slope ‐ seed to pasture/hay/prairie/forest depending on situation

Nitrogen reduction from land currently growing row crops in the upper Midwest.

o Better nutrient efficiency would benefit from better data on farm management data. Can wildlife resources support providing this information

o Increase living cover on the landscape o Treatment of tile discharges

Alternative crop systems o Easy clear markets. o Perennial biomass crop markets.

Community resources for investments (“cooperatives”) o Group of farmers figuring out ways to work together. o Anaerobic digesters – manage resource instead of livestock

manure in overflowing pits applied on frozen ground by pelletizing or digesting.

What are the practices to market? Or how to market? o Not just brochures or public meetings with landowners, but

different strategies. If producers don’t value clean water, then we (as

conservationists) are not doing our job. Misconceptions that landowners may have, such as

thinking water is clean because it is clear. People think water leaving farm is clean.

o Invest in technical changes Technical advice – Need technical assistance Understanding where farmers are getting information

Who does marketing? Farm groups for farmers.

Conservation organizations need to be ready. Soil organic matter

Manure injection systems Infrastructure for environmentally sustainable crops –

transportation systems. Community (corporation, etc.) investment

Groups of farms / landowners pooling resources.


o Motivating producers to engage in monitoring – working with scientists. Build trust

Strategy to interest people was example where farmers agree to participate.

o Farmers took water samples leaving farm and got reports on nitrogen, associated with dollar amount of loss from runoff.

Easy, clear market for alternatives

Need to point out the value of the nutrients that run off.

Translates to wasted $ for Agriculture and reduced that should be of interest.

Soil health, organic matter. UW‐ Extension told me that female producers

sometimes more willing to listen to new ideas

Women are more likely to look for resources on the internet.

Once it has been determined what the individual resource concerns require to help them contribute toward achieving ecosystem resilience, resource stewardship recommendations can be developed and distributed in plain, simple language to help people and institutions know how best to proceed to meet this goal.

This should provide clarification for funding and technical assistance organizations as to how they could best assist in this process.

What do we advocate for? Consistent message in wildlife community needed.

How do producers see their interest? o Feel constrained by $. o Producers care about effects on

neighbors.

Seasonality ‐ 80% of annual load occurred during snow melt.

Grazing lands

Define grazing as continuous or rotational? o Didn’t get into different types but recognize different impacts

on water quality and wildlife.

Certified grazing system mentor program ‐ WI Grass Works has a state certified mentor program (Dairy Grazing Apprenticeship) that helps farmers establish a managed grazing system http://www.dairygrazingapprenticeship.org/Objectives

Invasive management – types of issues and scales vary. Not a lot of resources available.


Minimizing drought o Diversification o Protection of wetlands

Management plans multiple year Scale of individual land manager

o Crop insurance is impediment – people raising cattle didn’t get level of payments as row crops, so they converted from cattle to row crops. Fire – 3‐5 years Local level, multiple land managers Landscape‐scale fire corridors, priority areas, promoted Impediments – local county boards

Cattle o Genetics, water management, riparian o EQIP ACEP list of practices o Impediment – ACEP requires 3rd party participant match,

whereas grassland did not. o Annual season scale o Individual land manager

Riparian quantity o Multiple years o Strategic watersheds

Riparian management o ACOE “tree screens” (riparian forest) indicated where levees

would not fail. More failure without tree screens. o Continental scale impact. o Multiple year o Impediment ‐ Corn‐based ethanol

Objectives o minimize invasives o maximize sustainability (production) o minimize impact of drought o reintroduce/manage Rx fire o maximize daily weight gain of cattle o maximize water quality and quantity o branded beef o riparian management/protection o alternative markets o reduce transaction costs

Expand on objectives (scales/impediments/policies) o Minimize invasives: 1 to multiple years, issues & scales very

different depending upon ecological region (watershed scale); weak policy support for addressing

o Minimize impact of drought ‐ multiple years to

decades/individual land managers


crop insurance policies an impediment (after drought conversion to row crops)

o Reintroduce prescribed fire: multiple years (3 to 5); scale of

local to multiple land managers, policy impediments local/county burn bans; policy to promote landscape scale implementation (using incentives)

o Maximize daily weight gain of cattle: annual/seasonal and

individual land manager existing program practices: EQIP, PFW, ACEP practices bring back GRP (ACEP requirement is for 3rd party 50%

cost share on easement ‐ a way of indirectly focusing on consensus priorities because cost share comes from NGOs)

o Maximize water quality ‐ watershed mgmt or individual level;

policy to focus resources on strategic watersheds identified by the Conservation Fund GIS tool

o Riparian management: overlap with Army Corps interest in

“tree screens” to protect levee integrity

o Alternative markets: multiyear and potentially continental scale! impediments: corn‐based ethanol policy (bad for water

quality b/c continuous corn requires more pesticide/nutrient inputs)

biofuel/green energy subsidies needed to balance fossil fuel subsidies, even the playing field

certification of “green” bioenergy/beef products ‐ public recognition/understanding/trust

o Additional points discussion

How to change CAFOs: economic incentives & market preference for grain‐fed cattle:

CAFO policies for better mgmt: manure composting, power generation (capture methane)

alternative markets could change the preference and economic incentive

How do you get around the huge impediment which is

difficulty of change (let alone costs)? Need “space program” level investment in converting

the agriculturesystem


Target the locations where key actions will do the most good

need human dimensions layer on top of everything else that identifies the landowners most innovative, most flexible/open to adopt new practices

Young Farmers of America, 4H etc ‐ need to get a food in the door of the young farmer mentorship programs

EPA Gulf guardians & other sustainability awards (e.g. Sand County Fdn); could recognize this type of stewardship

Work with partners such as GLCI ‐ work through NRCS partners to make the connection; Partners for Conservation: mostly ranchers (~38 states) figure out their problems and how to address them; then ask policymakers/science to assist in getting their changes

Complexity of different forms of grazing practices ‐ there are many trade offs just within cattle/grassland management.

Generational time scale for behavioral change is a constraint ‐ human dimensions ‐ the trust aspect; difficulty of changing behavior even after attitudes have changed. Science does not change attitudes.

All organizations NRCS, FWS, state need to have same message for landowners. Otherwise all lose credibility.

Floodplain Forest

General principles o Acknowledge private ownership, maintain some mix of

agriculture, forest and habitat with production systems more attuned to floodplain hydrology that reduces intensive flood control costs/inputs, and gains floodplain services like flood attenuation and nutrient cycling.

o Hydrologic connectivity is important.

Scale o Rather than project‐level, look at impact‐level scale. More

impact or bang for buck is where areas are smaller with more control over restoration.

o Did not talk about time scale.

Two classes of actions o Treatment of already impacted waters o Reduction by prevention – Focus on this!

Drainage water management o Restore wetlands o Engineered and managed draw down for productivity of crops

and waterfowl (ex. Emiquon, IL)

Alternative crops – diversification of forest

Land acquisition


o Hydrologic connectivity o Habitat connectivity along river corridors

Invasive species o Vegetative ‐ buckthorn removing ground layer, leading to

erosion and siltation.

Marketing or outreach strategy o Transportation bill with significant environmental component

started initiative to work together. Spoke same words, but didn’t have same meanings. Transportation thought they were doing certain things, but words had different meanings.

Rice – Lower Mississippi Valley (AR, LA, MO, MS & 2 TN producers)

Targeted by geographic area and watershed issues related to hypoxia.

Water management – conversion to surface water systems and tailwater recovery system.

o Reduces amount of groundwater pumped. Louisiana pumping allows saltwater intrusion.

o Irrigation water management – efficiency, decrease water costs, reduced nutrient and pesticide runoff, waterfowl benefits from winter capture of water.

o Improved local water quality – reduced groundwater pumped. o Improved fisheries – double‐cropped crawfish with rice. o Improved water efficiency – for irrigation of rotation of

soybeans with rice.

Precision nutrient management – budgeting to improve water quality and nutrient utilization.

Integrated Pest Management o Improves beneficial insects.

Partial flooding of fields providing habitat with standing stubble.

Marginal rice lands o Opportunity for restored wetlands o Increased hunting and recreational opportunity

Cotton – Lower Mississippi River Basin

Increased irrigation efficiency

Improved soil health o Reduced tillage o Cover crops – increase amount and diversity

Grassed field borders to improve wildlife habitat o No feral hogs

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) o Improve water quality o Increase pollinators and beneficial Insects


Barriers/Constraints ‐ Policy, Regulatory & Market Limitations o Creative alternatives or things we already know? What do we think these actions will

do? Will they affect these objectives? Think about constraints – Are they real? What if they were lifted?

o Corn & soybeans

Cover crops

Technical knowledge

Seed supply

How to do cover crops with tillage

CCA education (certified crop advisors) o Information availability – getting information that exists into

hands of right individuals.

Whether cover crops are feasible if leasing short‐term, given that it takes more than a year to get a return.

o Cover crops in different rotation varies. Perennial bioenergy

Difference between whole‐field versus edge and mono‐ versus polyculture

Markets, risks

Equipment

Mindset

Policy and economics o Fuel and food standards reduce renewable cellulosic. o Still more valuable for producer to grow corn.

Technology developments – on the farm and with use of cellulosic biofuels (E‐85, E‐15).

Technical understanding o Associated with growing and managing perennial crops

sustainably. o Heat and power at small scale.

Future challenges of perennial biocrops o Transplanting switchgrass from place to place

Opportunity to rethink drainage – combine with modified drainage o If don’t need to drain land, seize opportunity to revisit topic.

High cost of natural gas.

Social constraints – not comfortable taking on a new technology and knowledge.

o Grazing lands

CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations)

Economic incentives and market preference for grain‐fed cattle. Alternative markets to change tastes.

Generation of methane Partners to work with

GLCI – grazing land conservation initiative


Partners for Conservation Behavioral change is generational

Younger generation (4‐H)

How to measure that with congress wanting results every 4 yrs Consistent messaging across organizations

Landowner is really confused, just turns them off.

o Floodplains Flood insurance policy

Sends mixed message. Don’t want you there, but writing flood insurance.

Ownership, authorities, COE programs (broken levee repair), MR&T Authority Owners may not want to move during narrow window of opportunity for

landowner decisions. Existing infrastructure – roads, utilities, schools Drainage infrastructure – ditches, pumps, tiles. Uncertainty about alternative uses – real values of nutrient cycling, flood

attenuation. Nutrient management regulation (cyanobacteria blooms)

New regulatory tool in Ohio with watersheds have Cyanobacteria blooms. State declares “watershed in distress” for 3‐year nutrient management plans.

Clean Water Act interpretation and enforcement is variable. Market limitations – values have not been quantified for good economic picture

of trade‐offs on alternative floodplain uses.

Biofuels, carbon sequestration

Ecotourism, recreation Invasive species

Affect how we operate habitat projects, plan other projects

Restoration of connectivity (lateral and longitudinal) Tax base impact of land acquisition (varies across country)

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act – depends on taxes Wetland restorations, especially in urban areas, have not functioned the way

they were supposed to, filtration, mismatched drainage area and size of ponds (need restoration science).

Historic land use

People own most of the floodplain – 2.4 million acres

Community cohesion issues caused by taking out floodplain areas. Awareness of program availability. Not knowing what is happening in changing agricultural communities.

o Rice

Management operation capacity of producer to optimize practices. May be lag time between implementation and when water is used.

Precision agriculture data is lacking for rice & cotton. High priced crops. Reduced nitrogen use by 7% by going to RTK steering. Precision use of nitrogen. Data being collected.


Farmers not utilizing to extent they could.

Technical capacity.

Don’t know who owns the data or access. Water supply availability Water management system

Demand exceeds capacity for Farm Bill and associated programs

So farmers don’t have to pump groundwater.

Budgetary constraints. GMO rice Complexity of programs and regulations

Hard for individual farmers to keep up with changes. New acronyms, regulations, issues with wetlands.

o Cotton Utilization of precision agriculture data Management / operation capacity of producer to optimize practice(s) Timing management of cover crops

Source of organic matter and soil health.

High value crop, don’t want to plant 5 days late because cover crop isn’t ready to be terminated, losing value.

Costly

Expensive to raise cotton – takes a lot of inputs, number of times over the field, aerial application (also with rice). Precision with GPS getting better.

Complexity of programs and regulations.

Day2:Wednesday,August13,2014– Objectives, Performance Measures & Alternative Actions Anticipated results and output from discussions: A clear understanding and more well‐defined structure of the problem, which will include a refinement of a conceptual model of how an integrated strategy is linked to the specified objectives. The goal is to refine details and ensure all perspectives are represented in the description of the opportunities for integrating and targeting actions. Small groups will be organized by expertise in the four habitat/systems: (1) modified headwaters/working lands; (2) prairies/savannas; (3) forested riparian; and (4) bottomland hardwoods/mainstem) from a range of perspectives, including geographic and stakeholder distinctions.

Implementation&ModelRefinement Review outcomes of Day 1 ‐ Implementation Discussion

Overview of Technical Models and areas for refinement

Review and adjust process for Day 2


ObjectivesHierarchy – entire group Review and discuss Fundamental/Means Objectives from each perspective.

o Fundamental objectives – Is this to Minimize Impacts to Agricultural Producers?

Perceived differently than accounting for increasing benefits to them. Overarching objective is to Increase or Maximize Production (as ecosystem services) to include Wildlife, Agricultural Production and Water Quality.

Local and Gulf Scale ‐ Does Water Quality include Gulf Hypoxia as well as local water quality?

Land can be productive, not agricultural sustainability per se. Productivity of a parcel of land should be much broader. If you want deer, productivity is how many and how big. Allows us to market alternatives to a whole variety of potential stakeholders.

Productivity as “ecosystem services” but trick will be interpreting that.

All water quality – USGS monitors local, NOAA monitors Gulf. We have data for all scales.

o Performancemetrics – Identify common metrics for each means objective. For water quality metrics, treat water quality in terms of export or retention in

kilograms or mass. Look at land ability to retain or contribute to nutrients. Did that in Madrid‐St John which worked well. Looked at load at local scale.

Put dollar amount in pounds or kilograms. Call that “Local Water Quality” with a metric of nutrient load to track?

Just “load” to encompass all scales.

Local water quality ‐ Is it possible to have local reduction without cumulative reduction?

Reducing at the source would reduce the cumulative load. o But not reducing upstream load?

Concentration at the tile is the highest. If you fix it up in the watershed, should have a cumulative effect. Could still get to Tennessee and still be awful.

Could you prioritize watersheds differently if you were wanting to produce?

o Reservoirs make a big difference too. o The challenge for cumulative nutrient load in the Gulf, the

challenge is coordination up and down the watershed. Can succeed in some areas and be offset in other areas.

o So much background nitrogen anyway. Will take 80 years to have improvement in Gulf, even if you clean up local water quality.

For this problem, would tracking local water quality benefits be enough?

o Scale thing. Optimizing practices, strategically placing resources (cover crops, tools, etc). Would monitor and prove a local


reduction, even if not detected at global scale, would inform other watersheds for delivery there and policy.

o When you get at efficiency of implementation, comes into play.

Have to stop the bleeding at field level, then have evidence over years with Gulf benefits. Helps farmer, habitat and Gulf.

o Water quality is regenerating problems. Must retain water on the land to prevent problems (restoration, cover crops, no till to keep water on the landscape as much as possible).

In Minnesota we observed that there is not a sufficient local interest in nitrogen reduction to meet our responsibility to downstream impairments. In the case of Phosphorus it is likely that State and local interests in Phosphorus reduction will be greater than meeting our fair share of contributions to the Gulf. This may be different in each state. State Nutrient Strategies can be helpful in this regard.

o That would be common across the Midwest.

In the Modified Headwaters – Land Use influence diagram, we portrayed that. Increasing water retention would be means of achieving nutrient reduction.

o Have not talked about Conceptual Models for each of the 4 Habitat/Systems. Could work on these tomorrow or remotely to get a better sense for the major drivers of the process. Threw everything into the model. Need to simplify.

Scaling of metrics ‐ Measuring is the question. All of this hierarchy, how do we

add up across the scales? From habitat and increased productivity, talking about decades as opposed to years and monstrous geographic scale.

Need to talk about how this is measured. Could make assumption that you will implement and model out over 10 years. Could be nutrient reduction over decadal time scale. Translate into any time scale, but would be nice to have them all on the same time scale, not necessarily in same units, but comparable in terms of how you track impact.

o Get into realm of speculation. Using a model to predict makes some people uncomfortable. Always modeling implicitly. Would be more comfortable having explicit model to make the predictions.

Kilograms are great for science, but to talk to people, put it in pounds (or both).

Seasonality ‐ Increase capture of spring flush of nutrients.

Is that a strategy? Is it important to put a seasonality on that? o Absolutely, when bulk is moving in January, different than

north central Iowa, seasonality of o Will not monitor just once a year, but would act when it is most

critical.


Metrics and Seasonality

Seasonality caution: Hypoxia happens throughout the year, but gets measured at one time during the year in mid‐summer. The zone that is measured in mid‐summer is responding to nutrient loading that occurs in the spring. The point is that loading that occurs during other seasons still matters.

Some annual integrated total amount? o Have to track it throughout the year. The majority of nutrients

through Gulf in winter or spring. That would be the time to show improvement locally. Have the Gulf as baseline but with more frequent measure locally – before crops, during crops, during fallow period. Fallow is when we get the most nutrient loss, so cover crops may give us the largest change in reduction.

How to alternatives get applied and when in determining actions. Can track them seasonally, but assess overall impact at local scale annually as cumulative?

o Could model from season to season. o Since the Spring load is likely the greatest in the Midwest, there

is some thought that solutions that are effective at mitigating the spring load will help at other seasons as well. Just depends on communication strategy. Will talk to

farmer about total pounds loss through year. What are you reporting? What might resonate would

be cumulative measure.

Metrics for different audiences

Why are we looking for one metric? Different audiences are interested in different things. Swimmers in summer. Domestic wells care about groundwater. Baseflow, spring and annual load all needed and provide different perspectives. Seeing an increase in nitrate at Mississippi outlet as result of 15 years of measuring – a groundwater signature.

If you take total load and say it equals a bunch of different measures. o For now, go with “Total” and “Seasonal” load to pick up

summer and winter.

Having a single metric makes it easier to measure. Which one you will report?

o Head’s in oven, feet in icebox, so everything is ok? You didn’t meet overall goals if it is only good in one season.

Talking about nitrogen and phosphorus but hydrology is the driver for all of those. Being a Purdue grad, can blame Earl Butts for going fencerow to fencerow. Need to restore that to retain water on the land.

o Models help determine what to track. o In Wisconsin, 80% of phosphorus in snowmelt – 4 storms give

both volume and nutrients. How do we control 4 storms? Gets to uncertainties in terms of climate and weather.


Do we care about types of P and N? See particulate in no‐till versus dissolved in conventional tillage.

o Still P. Moves differently and solutions are different, but have to take whole systems approach. Can’t ignore one or the other. Starts with sound nutrient management. Have barriers for that. No till for one and cover crops for the other. Takes a whole system, including a filter or buffer to catch it moving off the field.

As much detail is valuable but total cumulative effort is needed. o That comes in Consequences Table.

Measurements can vary significantly due to weather/climate and its influence on flow. As a result measurement of change in large system like the Mississippi River will likely require analysis that includes flow weighted means or multiyear running averages. \Models will be useful to supplement measurement to help interpret the effects of management and landuse within a system that is quite dynamic.

o Most of what we are talking about are actual measured. Looking at small local watershed, throwing everything at it, putting all efforts into smaller watershed to implement change. Predictions fed back to models at different scales.

o Nitrogen is a cascade that moves between mediums and changes form. Any approach that does not address the full cascade will not be successful. USDA, EPA and USGS are working to develop a coordinated strategy. Can we capture that in different alternatives?

This is an iterative process. We will revisit it again. At some point, we may

discover these aren’t useful metrics. Are these ok for right now?

Increase Water Quality? Or “improve” water quality as better terminology? Yes.

Groundwater in Water Quality ‐ This is very much a surface water approach. Skip’s point about different forms of nitrogen is important.

Could breakout water quality into groundwater and surface water. o Wouldn’t enhancing infiltration be a technique for improving

water quality rather than one of those boxes? Techniques for implementing strategy, but there is a

process to get this benefit. Is it necessary to track that intermediate step.

Very hard to measure water infiltration. Need to stick with measuring N and P.

o Needs to be an objective box for Surface Water and for Groundwater. Can affect one without the other. So hard to clean groundwater. Talking about this as a process rather than an outcome.

Groundwater is an end in itself if we put it in


Objectives. If we include it in the Influence Diagram, it’s part of the process.

Somewhere need to recognize that water quality is both surface and ground water. Might be a different approach. Must address both.

Water Quantity ‐ Capture water quantity somewhere by keeping it on the landscape.

Cumulative versus local load ‐ Need clarification about cumulative load versus local. Is cumulative at Mississippi mouth into Gulf? Yes. Breaking it down to treat local and watershed load, then having surface and groundwater feeding into those? Local nutrient feeds into cumulative, so why are they side by side.

Trying to reduce Gulf Hypoxia, not just load.

Doesn't how we address the flashy hydrograph has an outcome that can be reflected on the right hand side wrt groundwater?

Graphic is things that go into nutrient load on top of Increased Productivity, which is very localized, very farm‐specific. Losing understanding of scale. Local level, watershed level then Mississippi level.

o Scale for monitoring load ‐ Get confused at scale. Here in Objectives Hierarchy we are representing our values and how we measure success, not the process by which we get there. The Influence Diagram shows the process. Objectives show what we care about as end points. End of field or local nutrient monitoring, more difficult is cumulative loading of

all areas in system, feed up to one another as opposed to being on the same level.

The cumulative load is the sum of the local loads minus the reduction / addition from instream processes.

Getting local scale as process by which you arrive at cumulative load. But the cumulative load is ultimate measure.

Local and cumulative (downstream impacts) represent different human perspectives. Not sure it is useful for us to pit these as competing objectives. Our highest priorities should be taking actions that address both local and downstream. "Think global and act local"

I don’t think that is what we said. Look at the MN strategy that calls for significant nitrogen reduction for downstream impacts coming from MN along with other states. Since there is a more limited self interest for N reduction than for P reduction in Minnesota, there may be a need for more support in the form of education, assistance etc for N reduction. My point if I didn't make it clearly is that there are many factors that need to be considered when developing strategies but if all else is equal, and local interest is the main factor, we are more ready in Minnesota for Phosphorus control . Nitrogen reduction will need more outside intervention/assistance.


Makes sense mathematically, but if we are delineating core values in Objectives and Minnesota says they worry only about local, don’t want that to fall out because you would lose a big part of the audience.

Cumulative load is probably not going to change in our life time. Will take a long time to affect hypoxia.

o Why not tier the Objectives? Make a line down to Cumulative Load (larger audience), then Local Load?

Insert an arrow in the Objectives Hierarchy to show Local feeding into Cumulative.

You’re talking about the Mississippi. It’s going to be muddy. o Maybe there’s a difference in how we work with Nitrogen.

Understand how N leaves the system. Loose N in a soybean year, not in a corn year. How fertilizer moves.

This arrow says we have a Constraint where we have to have nutrient reduction occurring in zones that have already been identified as important in reducing water quality. Some work HAS to be done in those areas to contribute.

o Parallel to Increase AgricultureProductivity – all farmers across all areas. To me, this is a scale issue. Don’t see how we can separate it.

What does “local” mean?

The metric that I felt comfortable with is state or county or watershed. Tends to be right context for multi‐state partnership. That is easily defined. Without that you lose the ability to say what “Local” is – state and county in a tiered approach.

What measure do we use to determine what “Local” is.

In Process Diagram, is that structure what eventually goes into the metric? Yes.

Cumulative is still the end goal. Local is beneath that. Then Surface and Groundwater levels. Those are the scales at which the metrics are measured?

o USGS is HUC12. Some organizations monitor tile lines. Will that speak to all stakeholder groups? HUC12 is

about 8,000 acres. Not a lot of HUC12s are monitored. USGS in Indiana is

monitoring 4‐digit, which is huge. Getting some tighter monitoring, but long‐term is larger scale.

o Some MRBIs would monitor HUC12s.

Instead of “Local” should we use the term “HUC12” as local and HUC4 at larger watershed level?

o Getting far into the details. We can flesh out what local is. o Depends on the partnership level. In some areas, they may

participate at stream or large river level. Keep all options open to explore, then challenge ourselves.


o HUC8 scale is a useful geoscale for planning local goals and strategic action plans when considering the Gulf. Most of the maps shown yesterday showed info at that scale. When actually trying to move the measurement needle a HUC 12 project scale is still a large area. There are about 800 HUC8s in the Miss Basin.

Where does monitoring fit into this? These Objectives may not be what you monitor but where you invest. Checking to see if your assumptions make sense.

Using models to spatially show what we can get from monitored sites. Combination of both. The long‐term monitoring sites at multiple scales. Minnesota just funded a long‐term trend monitoring of their own to evaluate changes. An annual change is not very informative. Ask are loads changing at multiple scales and why.

o The larger blueprint that we are creating will have to be stepped down to different programs in different ways. We could be descriptive to say that “30% of this

watershed should be invested in this action, 20% in this action, etc” as an optimal design. For implementation, we take it to others to ask how to do it. If we go to a smaller scale, this project outcomes might seem too prescriptive. That

I agree with the past speaker monitoring validates or repudiates models. All too often we have assumed we had the right solution and later discovered we were putting scarce resources into an ineffective practice.

Adaptive management approach.

o Means‐EndsDiagrams – describes the interim mechanisms by which actions affect objectives. Action ‐> Decrease Loads in Surface Water ‐> Decrease Loads in Groundwater ‐

> both Decrease Local Loads ‐> Decrease Cumulative Loads (larger audience)

The surface to ground water arrow should go both ways. Groundwater changes affect base flow.

One of the ways to treat surface water is to drive it into the groundwater. The solution in one will harm the other.

Tile drained landscapes bypass surface water completely. At a local scale, you could have monitoring with edge of field, paired

watersheds, singularly or in combination with research.

An action type in the table could be monitoring.

Improving Soil Health

A Means? When you have good soil health, you don’t have surface or groundwater quality problems. Measure improvements in soil health as an indication that you are protecting those things.

o Measure organic matter, microbial activity? Density, pH, earthworm counts, etc.


It could be a Means, an Action or an Objective.

Capture these other Objectives because they inform monitoring. May not be end states to do landscape scale assessments, but they are important contributors.

Squeezing too much in the Objectives Hierarchy. Trying to identify the states in the Means Diagram as a conceptual model on how we affect the systems.

Only talking about nitrogen and phosphorus. What about pesticides and other things in the water that cause problems for wildlife? Can’t forget about Atrazine effects on frogs.

o Water quality is everything, so we don’t inadvertently miss something (stakeholders). Metric might need to be more than P.

Isn’t this specific to hypoxia? If water quality is the end, once we go to wildlife…

Couldn’t you change the top box to be Water Quality as overall Fundamental Objective?

Could have metric applied directly. Where will you draw the line in terms of water quality?

o Big ones that affect wildlife should be included, such as Atrazine. Don’t think we can just add all these other things. If

this group will engage in discussion of other water quality implications, should be separate in its own box. The toxicology of that is a significant body of literature.

o Are the practices to address those issues similar to what you would do to address nitrogen and phosphorus? Not a lot of science. Assume that some of those chemicals are affected. Are there studies? Some. Why don’t we have nutrient, sediment, pesticide load

as boxes under the overall “Improve Water Quality” measure.

Depends on whether we want boxes or text to support diagram.

o Not sure how to integrate that, but need to deal with it at a later point. Outline Cumulative Nutrient Load but maybe pesticide,

nutrient, antibiotics, estrogen, etc.

o DecisionProblemStatement – The group revisited the problem statement given the discussion on objectives and outcomes. This will kick down to local level for them to address what is important to them.


It sounds as if we are departing from the goals to the means to the primary goal. Don’t we want to identify concurrent outcomes and assess these as we examine the alternative actions.

If we want to benefit terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, can’t just stop at nutrients. We are comfortable with stopping there.

If you invest in a buffer, is there information to demonstrate what population level effects are – more or less fish. Are those relationships understood? What do we do right now for aquatic populations.

o Helps to come back to why we are here. With partnership, looking for value‐added. Taking us a fair amount of time to hone in on how we incorporate wildlife management actions into efforts that reduce hypoxia. How do we find value‐added in conservation partnership efforts by doing that.

Focus on hypoxia, think about these actions, then go to the next diagram

(Objectives Hierarchy). Whatever actions we take are to Increase Productivity and will feed into one or more of these boxes. In reality, you have generally everything you are looking for.

Regarding hypoxia, fish stay out of the way of anoxic water. Benthic organisms that are essential to fish, like perch

Keeping the goals focused is important. Alliances will be enhanced through multiple purpose solutions which will likely be the key to show desired outcomes eg wildlife, carbon sequestration as well as other water quality objectives ie pesticide or sediment reductions.

o If we measure more things, we get more rewards for other things being dealt with. Some practices may be primarily for nutrients. Whereas crop rotation may deal with pesticides in addition to N and P.

Like to think of systems approach. What would that look like?

Integrated Pest Management would include Prevention, Avoidance, Monitoring and Suppression in a whole cropping system. It’s in the scheme already.

o Have included it in the Influence Diagram but not specifically in the Objectives.

In final analysis, will find practices that reduce nutrients and pesticides will have a better rating. Think we should include it.

o Reducing pesticides is a means of getting to aquatic species habitat improvement – and terrestrial. It’s in there and has to get integrated in through Means‐Ends Diagram.

In Problem Statement, says “Allocate wildlife management actions” which is

very specific. May need to change that to “allocate management actions” as some things we are doing have first priority to pollution, others to wildlife.

I agree with removing "wildlife." Better "landscape" management actions? I would like 'fish and wildlife' management to stay in. Some separate fish from wildlife. Some would't include plant community.


o We have this list of Alternative Actions. How many of these are actually wildlife actions.

o If we look at problem statement and deliver a billion dollars to reduce hypoxia but it doesn’t have wildlife impacts, that’s not credible for us as wildlife conservationists. We need to remind ourselves.

The LCC coordinators have been told to work on this by our Steering Committees.

o How to best integrate our habitat management actions. Wildlife sounds more specific. I would hesitate in removing wildlife from the goal. I

would prefer to look at the overlap between wildlife and water quality goals. Further, I believe that we also need to identify other coincidental benefits/effects.

'Restoration' is too restrictive since there are 'protection' or 'preservation' interventions that are part of restoration.

o The agricultureand water quality community have their act together. Our niche is to identify where wildlife conservation can make a contribution to make a difference and be value added. Thinking about strategic plan for conservation within

the basin, many of our goals for fish and mussels could be directly linked to nutrient management and Gulf hypoxia. Don’t want to totally shift gears. A lot of what we fund will affect nutrient retention and reduction because we are funding habitat restoration in floodplain, reconnecting oxbows. We are working with terrestrial or aquatic wildlife, not just habitat. Anything done for habitat is specifically for species.

Change to “integrate habitat and species management and conservation delivery with…”

o Species and habitat management that could also have water quality benefits. Also integrating habitat with nutrient management into cohesive strategy. LCC represents partner programs. This is what was in TCF's scope of work... “develop

integrated strategies to protect and enhance wildlife resources that complement ongoing efforts that reduce nutrient loads in the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone.”

One more: “strategies are intended to complement ongoing work undertaken by the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force and draw from the best practice recommendations outlined in


numerous publication from NOAA, NRCS, USDA, and other sources, so one of the workshop objectives will be identifying near‐term spatial priorities that ‘optimize’ the investment of resources.

“Complementary” might be better than “integrate” – so, “How to best apply wildlife habitat and species management in a way that complements…”

How to “optimize” conservation delivery throughout the Basin?

Is this only applying to farmers? How to enable them? Foresters, etc. o State nutrient reduction strategies call for thousands of acres

of buffers. The opportunity for landscape conservation design in those acres is huge. Doesn’t matter who makes that decision. They are included. Unpack strategies for wildlife that are habitat related

and unpack nutrient strategies, that’s integration. Not just integration. If the Service has acquisition

funds, we would take action that is complementary with USDA.

Might be able to demonstrate that we could contribute 10% by reorganizing where or what wildlife actions are taken.

o Might have an objective in Mississippi Alluvial Valley of million acres of forest. If we do that, was is the nutrient reduction value of making that land use change? Forested wetlands may not be a good nutrient reduction strategy. Have our objectives for grassland and prairie. What is the nutrient effect? Not just where but to optimize for the best nutrient

reduction from the best wildlife benefit.

That’s the landscape conservation design. Actively searching for different alternatives. If we just

consider species impacts, could look different if we integrated another objective of water quality benefit. Might change the design. Not purposely picking a strategy for water quality but drives the design.

At the beginning: 'How and where...' o Strategies targeted for reduction of nutrients to Gulf. That is

one factor to be weighed across wildlife benefits to ensure that everything being equal, would prioritize that? Consequences Tables could weight objectives

differently. All other things being equal in wildlife management options, would choose the one that also had nutrient reduction effects.


What is meant by “conservation delivery”? Technical assistance. o Habitat management actions aren’t always inclusive of

easement. o “How and where to best design and implement…” o The primary thing is to reduce nutrients. Conversation this

morning was that the primary is wildlife, so “while simultaneously” should be before contribution.

o DecisionProblemStatement(finaldraft) – Review and make any final edits. How and where to best design and implement wildlife habitat and species

management and conservation delivery throughout the Mississippi River Basin in a way that benefits terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations, while simultaneously reducing the contribution of nutrients to Gulf hypoxia and balancing agricultural interests.

Did this change anyone’s perception of purpose?

o FundamentalObjectives&Scope ‐ If we could deal with these three things with a set of actions, including tracking, that would be a big job.

May take off “Decrease Risks”? o Including other forms of income through diverse land cover

may decrease risk. o Leave it for now. Could subtract that off from “Net Returns.”

Risks measured as Average $ / acre? As “projected loss” but could come out of Net Revenue? Or is this probability of failure?

Spatial scale

“Decrease Contribution to Gulf Hypoxia” gets aggregated over the whole basin.

Why ask about spatial scale? o Helps to define scale for making predictions. Started working

with HUC8s as base scale to understand nutrient aspect. Can continue at that scale, but this objective is cumulative over space. Over what scale? May have an increased agricultural production in some

areas, but will vary across watershed. Overall cumulatively, you want it to go up.

Challenge will be tracking it. “Local” as HUC8 but assessment is done at cumulative scale. Can drill down to specific locations to determine down‐weighting or up.

Temporal scale – more challenging

Will never be able to measure. At what scale can we detect impact as a measurable result?


o BMPs in Chesapeake make one of two assumptions – as soon as implemented, assume success. Or assume it stays for 50 years, then project impacts over time.

Challenge is that wildlife benefits may accumulate more quickly than water quality benefits. Can look at wildlife at same scale as nutrients.

o Nutrient reductions essentially mass‐balance equations. o There may be some win‐wins where we can offer management

that potentially increases productivity while increasing wildlife and reduction of nutrients, that is not a realistic goal for many of the actions that are contemplated. What if we said that expect a tradeoff for social responsibility of not greater than 5% reduction in crop yield revenue. Beyond that we may want to consider incentives or compensation. Set a threshold for trade‐offs?

Model data up to large watersheds? Have never had an entire HUC8 with cover

crops. No data to show that it is scalable. We make a big assumption.

USDA SWAT model takes that into account. o Chesapeake Bay model was a 2025 milestone. They track the

progress of the Bay by setting numbers or goals. o The loads were never reduced that much because model

assumptions were too aggressive. Revised those based on fields and expanded that.

We measure Total N and P in the Gulf every year. What is the ask in this model?

o How to predict what you would expect from implementing the actions? The SWAT model is set up to do that. Do you consider a time horizon?

How long it will take to see response is not in models.

The lag time is not accounted for. Does SWAT assume if you put it there, it will be

affective? Yes.

Time that it will take to show benefits suggests using wildlife as primary focus because they will respond more quickly. Set wildlife as primary bar of success.

o Want to simultaneously predict benefits, but for one they will accrue faster than for others.

o That’s why we were talking about local scale, where we see response earlier.

If you have model set up, we agree on measures and have key set of watersheds with best possible implementation, may still be missing the mark at the Gulf.

Monitor things to indicate why we are missing the mark. Models represent assumptions as hypotheses. This is the accumulation of local


effects. Can see week responses in Gulf but find smaller places that show larger effect.

May mean some watersheds are going up, others are neutral. Basins at multiple scales.

o It’s a biological system not a pipe from Iowa corn ground to the Gulf. Might not see a difference because of things that influence, noise in our data.

o Might get a good response in a watershed that may not have much impact on the Gulf. Paper on contribution of Mississippi Delta, could improve that and still not affect.

Are we setting ourselves up for failure with small impact? o Have to have leading measures in between for smaller

watershed improvements. Must have those steps. If we are being judged, we are making an impact. If

anyone pays attention, we are ruffling feathers enough.

o Know difference between realized and expected benefits. Not whether we can achieve, but what are expected benefits. We will need some understanding of suitability of our

contemplated actions. More specifically, those suitability limitations will be physical but also social.

The earlier observation that this changes significantly for areas considered highly productive versus marginally productive or environmentally sensitive.

o Response or constraints may be different in those areas.

InfluenceDiagramsforFocalSystems‐ Reviewed Influence Diagrams for relationships between objectives.

o Drew picture of different actions and locations in landscape. Thinking of spreadsheet model to weight and rank actions. Work at the top of the watershed (Headwaters), Mid‐sized stream order, and

Large River Floodplain scale.


In ovals are what you might do in those locations to restore hydrology. For example, in upper part of the watershed, remove artificial drainage in some locations.

Making connections on floodplain lower down. Each action will have impact on wildlife, which could be next tier. Organizing different categories of restoration actions.

o The landscape conservation design could organize actions according to stream size and

Focal Habitats where they are pertinent to particular Agricultural Production Systems. The following diagram is a conceptual example of how Actions could be organized.

o Species ‐ May want to revisit choices on indicators Balance best indicators with available distribution data.



Figure 1. Draft influence diagram for land use in “modified headwaters”, where green boxes represent action types, blue boxes represent system processes or uncertainties and red boxes represent fundamental objectives. The hydrology and land use models may be linked.


Figure 2. Draft influence diagram for hydrology in “modified headwaters” in agricultural working lands (row crops or grazing), where green boxes represent action types, blue boxes represent system processes or uncertainties and red boxes represent fundamental objectives. The hydrology and land use models may be linked.


Figure 3. Draft influence diagram for prairie systems in uplands, where green boxes represent action types, blue boxes represent system processes or uncertainties and red boxes represent fundamental objectives (based on Figure 1 in Dowler, et al., 2013).


Figure 4. Draft influence diagram for forested riparian systems in small streams and mid‐sized rivers, where green boxes represent action types, blue boxes represent system processes or uncertainties and red boxes represent fundamental objectives.


Figure 5. Draft influence diagram for bottomland hardwood / floodplain systems in mainstem and large rivers, where green boxes represent action types, blue boxes represent system processes or uncertainties and red boxes represent fundamental objectives (based on Figure 2 in Casper et al., 2009). Note, this diagram was developed post‐workshop and is not yet consistent with the SDM framework.



StrategyGenerationTable ‐ Alternative Actions o Action Types ‐ Identified representative Systems as basis for surrogates. Going back to

that discussion of Alternatives on basis of Systems to talk about wildlife oriented actions that may vary across agricultural production systems. Identified themes as “Action Types” further broken into specific Actions.

Key Nutrient Strategy Categories ‐ increase fertilizer/nutrient efficiency o increase fertilizer/nutrient efficiency o increase living cover o drainage water retention and treatment o field and near channel erosion control

Protection is really conserving what is already there. Do you really want to get into 10‐year agreement, acquisition, etc. The guy grazing it may be successful.

Same with Prescribed Fire, as you use that to restore systems.

o Assignment – Generate Actions for the 4 Ecological Systems to evaluate in a Conceptual Model at a HUC8 scale. The “R” and “C” was attempt to relate back to Rice, Cotton, Corn & Beans. Are there actions that work well together – cover crops with reduced tillage, do

we put that in the column? If you want to think about them as coordinated actions. Group talking about translocating prairie dogs. Wouldn’t do it without landowner agreements and economic incentives to preserve the colonies.

o Headwaters & Working Lands Water management

Drainage water – incorporated with tile line management (not just herring‐bone tile)

Irrigation water

Residue management

Soil health as part of water management Nutrient management

Precision management – 4Rs o Split and variable rate application


o Manure injection o Treatment wetlands – at bottom of drains o Late spring test with side dressing o Treatment time o Soil health o Cover crops o Green manure o Long‐term crop rotations

Integrated Pest Management

Diversified crop rotation

Scouting for birds, insects

Different herbicide groups

Variable cultivation practices

Banded versus broadcast application

Strip cropping Soil health

Cover crops

Reduced tillage with long‐term rotation

No‐till with cover crops

Reduced fallow periods

Adaptive nutrient management

Crop diversification (3 crops) o Perennial biofuels o Hay

Buffers

Prairie strips – using native grasses and forbs in fields Restoration and establishment

Prescribed fire, invasive species, mid‐contract management, 2‐stage ditches

o Wetland o Prairie o Savanna o Streams

o Prairie & Savanna

Grazing (other practices apply to lands grazed and not grazed)

Delayed haying – to improve bird nest success

Delayed grazing, intensity and duration o To improve bird nest success

Rotational grazing ‐ to promote grass species diversity, cover and structure for wildlife, nutrient management (variations in intensity and duration).

BMPs for grazing

Manage riparian, fencing and watering systems for cattle

Water quality – nutrient, pesticides, sediment, E coli?


Protection

Fee title and easements for extant prairie – for last remaining jewels of intact prairie (perpetual, number of years)

Short‐term agreements (10‐30 years)

Support for ranchers and producers to keep them on the land, using it as working land as more likely to stay in condition that could benefit wildlife (lose stewards / lose natural/working lands); successional planning.

Restoration – restore hydrology, topography, plug drains (a component of drought management)

Native riparian/wetland buffers or wildlife‐friendly.

Grass banks – NGOs or entities that own significant expanse of grassland that is loaned or rented as a “drought reserve” to help ranchers get through difficult years without overgrazing their property.

Restoration (creeks, streams, wetlands)

Restore hydrology or topography – plugging drains, keep wetlands for drought resilience

Native or wildlife‐friendly riparian buffers Grazed and non‐grazed

Prescribed fire – many purposes: control invasives, promote natives, control woody species encroachment.

Invasives control o Weed species encroachment (fire, grazing, mechanical,

chemical), especially important in non‐grazed areas.

Forb component in grasslands (plant diversity) o Native seed mixes, locally sourced (genetics). o Judicious use of herbicides important for wildlife, especially

pollinator benefits. o Manage intensive grazing – can bring forbs back without having

to seed them.


Nutrient management to build soils o Patch‐burn‐grazing for soil health – rotate grass use through

time

Retain savanna structure ‐ particular management of structure with some trees, but not taking over

o Timber stand improvement o Fire, grazing to keep savanna open

Scale: patch size and connectivity is important to wildlife and can decrease costs of management (fire, fencing, etc.)

o Benefits wildlife o Reduced costs of management o Cross‐cutting issue.


Science gaps (+ = data/information exists)

Practice Wildlife Ag Hypoxia

Rotational grazing Data + all across MR Basin

+ Data gap – info exists but not complete

Delayed haying Data + Data gap re: benefits

0/?

Prescribed fire Data + Data + Data +, can be +/‐ impact because of nutrient and sediment load

Wetland restoration

Data + Data + Data +

Grassland restoration

Data + Data + tradeoffs and some gaps

Data + (nutrient less, some gaps)


?/+ species and practice

Data + ‐

Protection Data + Data + Data + (might have some gaps)

Invasives Data + Data + ‐ ?

Forbs Data + Benefits – nitrogen, pollinators Data +

+ / gaps?

Nutrient management (soil health)

Data + Data + Data +

Savannas Data + Data + ? Data ?

o Riparian Small & Mid‐sized Streams

Need everyone else to do their job keeping sediment and water on land before riparian areas.

Buffers

Native vegetation (grass)

Woody (native)

Trifecta – fish, terrestrial, water quality

Saturated to protect groundwater Connectivity ‐ terrestrial and aquatic

State or practice? Connecting wetlands to riparian areas to stream, but also remeandering stream system. Also addressed terrestrial patches in juxtaposition to water. Depends on species of wildlife.

Identify agricultural productivity benefits. Low‐head dam removal

Increase fisheries

Improve water quality Remeandering

Increase fisheries and terrestrial

Improve water quality


Staged or natural restoration of streams

Remove sediment to recreate what was there prior to channelization.

Stream bank stabilization, especially using native materials adjacent to stream.

Increase fisheries

Improve water quality Stream bank stabilization

Utilizing native materials

Increase fisheries

Improve water quality

o Floodplains / Mainstem Large Rivers Timber Stand Improvement Desired future conditions for floodplain forests for wildlife Prescribed Fire Mechanical disturbance (disking, mowing) Chemical disturbance (pesticide, herbicide) Restore or mimic hydrograph Water level management Land cover easements and restoration

Reforestation.

Farmable floodplain easements similar to WRP. Knock down levees, expand floodplain, and allow limited cropping without insurance on some years.

Post‐flood cover ‐ over fallow areas with cover crops to benefit soil health and wildlife.

Invasive control (plant ‐ hydrilla, wildlife – nutria) Crop management Groundwater management Moist soil management Large‐scale river diversions – in Louisiana lower basin to restore wetlands for

nutrient removal and reduced loading into Gulf. Questionable science to predict benefits.

BMPs for forest management & harvesting (water quality runoff guidelines) Gaps in knowledge (yes = information exists)

Practice Wildlife Ag Productivity Water Quality

WLM/connectivity YES YES YES

Timber Stand Improvement

YES YES ?

Reforestation YES YES NO

Disturbance YES YES NO

Invasive control YES YES ?

Cropping YES YES YES

Groundwater extraction

? YES NO/A

MSM YES YES YES


BMPs YES YES YES

Diversion NO NO NO

o Just a few highest priority strategies? Or are these individual actions to assemble in a

portfolio? Had a lot of overlap – fire, riparian restoration, etc. Find the ones that are

common and look at those.

Will not exclude other things, but to simplify and move forward. Will go back to pick up others.



Strategy Generation Table ‐ Headwaters/working lands (crop land)

Water mgt Nutrient management (4 Rs)

Integrated Pest Mgt

Soil health Crop diversification

Buffer strips

Restoration / Establishment

Protection Grazing Prescribed Fire

Surface & tailwater recovery systems (R)

Manure injection Diversified crop rotation

Cover crops (R)

Perennial crops (for biofuels?)

Grassed field borders (C)

Wetland restoration

Acquisition (e.g., by agencies or NGOs)

Rotational Pres. Fire

Rotate soybeans with rice (R)

Precision nutrient mgt (split application vs variable rate)

Scouting Reduced tillage (R, C) w/long rotation

3 crops & rotation

Riparian buffers

Prairie restoration

Easements (wetland, grass, etc)

Continuous

Double‐cropped crawfish w rice (R)

Treatment wetlands Herbicide groups

No till w/cover crops

Small grains Stream buffers

Savanna restoration

Partial flooding of fields (R)

Manure mgt coop Cultivation Reduce fallow periods

Contour strips

Stream restoration

Drainage water mgt (R,F) + Tile

Handling & storage Banded vs. broadcast

Crop diversification (3 crops)

Prairie strips

Prescribed fire

Laid out on contour vs. herringbone

Late spring test & side dress

Strip cropping

Adaptive nutrient mgt

Two‐stage ditches

Irrigation water mgt

Timing of treatment Native perennials

Residue mgt Soil health Invasives

Soil health Cover crops / green manure

Two‐stage ditches

Long‐term crop rotation


Strategy Generation Table ‐ Prairie/Savannas

Grazing Forb component


Invasives control

Nutrient management

Restoration Protection Prescribed Fire

Timber stand improvement(for savannas)

Delayed haying

Native seed mixes

Same as IPM? Grazing, mechanical or chemical (grazed and non‐grazed)

Rotational grazing

Restoring hydrology

Fee title acquisition (p)

Prescribed Fire (grazed and non‐grazed)

Delayed grazing

Managed intensive grazing

Native, Riparian wetland buffers

Easements (p)

Rotational systems

Short‐term agreements

BMPs Supporting ranchers

Riparian wetland management

Grass banks

Connectivity


Strategy Generation Table ‐ Riparian Forest along Small & Mid‐sized Streams

Buffer strips Restoration Protection Connectivity

Native veg (grass) Dam removal Acquisition (e.g., permanent protection by agencies or NGOs)

Connecting wetlands to streams

Woody (native) Remeandering Easements (e.g., enrolling in a program for restoration of wetlands, grass, etc.)

Patch connection

Saturated Streambank stabilization with native materials

Contour strips


Strategy Generation Table ‐ Floodplain / Bottomland Hardwoods along Mainstem Rivers

Habitat management

Nutrient manage‐ment

Integrated Pest (weed?) Management

Soil health management

Crop diversification

Buffer strips

Restoration Protection Grazing Prescribed Fire

Prescribed Fire Post‐flood cover

Farmable floodplain easements

Herbicide/Pest

Restore hydrograph

Invasive control

Crop management

Moist soil management

Large‐scale river diversions

BMPs – Forest management, harvesting

Desired forest conditions



Uncertainty&SensitivityAnalysis ‐ What would it take to implement this on the landscape, applied in the best way given conditions? What information would you need to predict outcomes? What don’t we know? What science is needed to fill gaps? May be a lot of uncertainty. Potential research projects?

How do edge‐of‐field practices benefit agricultural productivity?

Is there data showing buffer impacts on agricultural productivity? Missing a critical step. Going back to objective statement. What and where

informs what strategy and alternative you would be considering.

How would you predict that? Not until Michael gets the map done for conservation map for wildlife and water quality. Could set up 3 categories – in focal area, in floodplain, what would strategy look like?

Make assumption that we know what and where to invest. Is there data to predict wildlife benefits or nutrient benefits for cover crops.

Looking at whole Mississippi Basin, everything will be different north to south. Will have to break into geographic region. Cover crops could work one year out of 5 in Wisconsin. Last year, everything died.

Presumption is whether there is information.

Lots of studies further south but not north. They have grown cover crops there but always for rotations. Now rotation is corn‐corn‐corn not having alfalfa there like we used to. Don’t have all data on water quality over frozen ground to validate models.

o Looking at whole basin in one swath? Describe where you do or don’t have information.

Assessing dam removal impact on agricultural productivity – is that a gap? Not how well can you grow cover crops in Wisconsin.

o If you apply practice, is there adequate information to predict relationships between an Action and the multiple benefits to meet Objectives? What would you need to know to predict? Where do we need to get more information?

o Gapsinknowledge(ScienceNeeds) – The group identified gaps in knowledge (science needs) for each of the four Ecosystems (Focal Habitats). 3 areas: condition, effectiveness, problem solving.

Condition ‐ the landscape condition over time to understand the baseline and progress relative to implementation of our strategies. Are there practices that can't be tracked as a result of government data transparency? Is the biggest problem what data to gather or how to create a common data base?

Effectiveness ‐ more data on the effect of these practices individually and in concert across various spatial scales.

Problem Solving ‐ a problem solving logic relative to planning that optimizes across the 3 goals.


Science Needs within each of the Ecological Systems (Focal Habitats)

Headwaters / Working Lands o Some practices with less controversy. Cover crops most

controversial regarding data on species. Yes – yes data. With question mark, some controversy

or partial data (some species, not others). Irrigation water management – no for species Perrenial bioenergy – no for species Buffers ‐ agricultural productivity benefit on marginal

land Treatment wetlands – agricultural productivity Manure handling & off‐site storage until properly

applied – no data on all. System doesn’t exist. Probably good for all 3.

Soil health (whole system of practices) – yes/no for species, yes for productivity and water quality.

Gaps in knowledge (No – indicates a gap)

Species Ag productivity Water quality (N & P reduction)

Northern cover crops (e.g., winter rye, radish, wheat)

For some crops

Some Yes

Southern cover crops

For some crops

Yes Yes

3‐crop rotation (in small grains)

Yes Yes Yes

Buffers Yes Yes (?) Yes

4 Rs Yes Yes Yes

Perennial crops (bioenergy)

Yes/No No Yes

ADWM w/contour tiles

Yes Yes Yes

Prairie strips Yes Yes Yes

IWM No Yes Yes

Strip cropping Yes Yes Yes

Treatment wetlands

Yes No Yes

Manure handling & storage

No No No

Soil health (suites of practices)

Yes/No Yes Yes


Prairies & Savannas o Data plus or no data or question marks. Some have data across

basin, but not others. Grassland restoration impact on agriculture has some

data but trade‐offs and different impacts on different species.

IPM – more data pluses than gaps but will vary through Basin.

Most gaps in linkage with hypoxia.

More confidence on wildlife and agriculture.

Riparian Streams o Identified research needed for all on AgricultureProductivity

impacts, except for buffers which takes land out of production. What farmer needs for CREP to counteract negative impact is known. Fish, terrestrial, water quality studies Connectivity – terrestrial and water quality, plus for

aquatic species. Low head dams – increases fisheries and improves

water quality Remeandering – fishand terrestrial, water quality. Stream bank stabilization – improved water quality.

Floodplains / Mainstem o Yes was some predictive capability. Similar gaps in practices

and effects on water quality. Timber stand improvement, reforestation, acquired

lands, converted agricultural ground. Quantitative studies on water quality.

Invasive control effect on water quality. Big question on Large River Diversion down south.

Day3:Thursday,August14,2014– Trade-Offs, Management Portfolios & Next Steps

Anticipated results and output from discussions: Refinement of models, based on full range of perspectives from wildlife, water quality and agriculture, including human dimensions (e.g., economics, policies, values, incentives). Identification and prioritization of research needs and opportunities for short‐term or long‐term actions. Refining conceptual models. Review all SDM steps

Step through all aspects of the SDM process with progress and examples. o Problem statement – revisited and was revised. Open any additional comments. o Objectives – simplified to capture the core pieces of the discussion and measurements.


o Alternative Actions – identified potential individual Actions that have not been assembled into a suite of actions that could be applied together or in sequence. Will identify some examples of strategies to move forward with as a prototype for the process.

o Consequences Table to compare Alternatives – look at costs and benefits of implementing strategies, possibly at HUC8 scale.

o Model example – used mapping information from The Conservation Fund to look at strategies for enhancing existing habitat compared to acres in agricultural production, pounds per acre nutrients exported. Assumed either agriculture or habitat. Can use this type of calculation to determine acres in Cover Crops, Enhancement or Protection with acres remaining in Conventional Agriculture and then track at the watershed scale what the pounds per acre of nitrogen removed. Assumed that Cover Crops can still contribute to agricultural revenue.

o Have been through Alternatives in the SDM cycle.

o Questions How is connectivity included?

Can use a model to drive connectivity as an up‐weighting for clustering. Built into the model rather than selecting it from outside.

What kinds of inputs do you need to make this kind of model work?

The group must determine what to actually evaluate (Actions) and data used to build a model or expert opinion to predict what would happen if you were to invest in alternative Actions.

o Could proceed with an assessment by running scenarios over and over again, changing the assumptions to see how it affects the decision. This shows where additional information would be valuable.

At what scale would you need the information?

Assumed HUC8 because that is layer we have in the mapping service. It may be a relevant scale for planning.

Costs will be the same for some watersheds, but may differ for others. Agricultural revenue and cropping systems will change from north to south, but should be able to get that at a reasonable scale.

o Does it make sense to step it down to a finer scale to capture that heterogeneity or average that for planning and step it down later.

o Could do a sensitivity analysis and determine what is important.

ConsequencesTables – Matrices showing effects of strategies on objectives assist with selection of Strategies for further evaluation.

Examine how well Actions perform against Objectives. Are there sets of Actions that go together naturally? How do values of stakeholders affect weighting and trade‐offs? How will climate change affect consequences?

o Will step through cursory assessment to think about how to put strategies together.


o Rank alternatives 1‐8 with 8 being best for addressing an objective, with regard to grassland birds in a portion of the watershed that is a mix of pasture and native grass. For Wildlife Objective (grassland birds)

Fee title and easements would maintain.

Delayed haying may be a high priority for nesting birds if they have a propensity for early spring cutting. More important than delayed grazing.

Difference between rotational systems and managed intensive grazing are close together.

For Net Annual Revenue Objective

Ranking o Managed intensive grazing and delayed grazing are highest

return. o Then rotational systems, delayed grazing, delayed haying. o Prescribed fire has benefits by increasing weight gain of cattle

or reduce cost of fertilization. o Fee title is a one‐time payment.

Is this annual accounting or revenue over time? o Over 5‐10 years depending on taxes. o Could get a payment for easement. o Time value of money.

Must record assumptions in making assessments. For Hypoxia Objective

Riparian wetland management highest. Managed intensive grazing, rotational systems and delayed grazing are close to each other.

For Cost [of Conservation Implementation] Objective

Fee title is highest cost, so gets a 1. Lowest cost for the conservation agency is delayed haying and grazing.

o In reality, may combine some Actions and not consider them separately.

Weighting & Trade‐Offs ‐ Given the problem statement and your perspective, if you

had to rank these in terms of what you prefer (could do the best on Wildlife and everything else was worst), how would you rank those? How much do you value increasing Wildlife relative to Revenue or Hypoxia?

Agency representatives, not landowners. Mission is improve hypoxia. If you can’t have both, which do you care more about?

Private landowners won’t implement if they don’t get something out of it. In North Dakota, Hypoxia would be low. Highest is Wildlife, then Revenue. Have to get the landowner buy in.

For landowner, rank is Revenue then Hypoxia. Last is cost to the agency.

Would the threat of regulation increase their concern about Hypoxia? Talking about regulating them if they don’t get it fixed. So Hypoxia is higher value.

Relative Weighting ‐‐ Now, put 10 points on highest Objective. How many points would you give to the second best? Will sum the points up then divide by


the total to get relative weighting percentage. People have a tendency to overweight.)

Everything gets weighted by value and summed across the rows to look for trade‐offs.

Need to figure out how to negotiate the Trade‐off to examine why you are prioritizing values differently.

o Are there other things you could do to improve performance or high value concerns?

Demonstrates: o How information would be used from Alternative Actions. o Scaling in space – differences across watershed. o Time frame – assessed annually or over period of 5‐10 years? o Assemble as suites of Actions in a Strategy? Develop a portfolio?

Example of how this ties into bioenergy development as a package of practices with contour farming, strip farming, as opposed to just doing perennial crops.

Strategy Generation Tables (by 4 Focal Systems)

o Assemble suites of Actions that naturally go together as a Strategy, like prescribed fire, livestock fencing with off‐stream watering, and rotational grazing.

o Headwaters & Working Lands (assuming conventional corn & bean rotation)

Low end

Drainage tiles laid out for potential future management (option for drainage water management with minimal retrofit)


Medium

Promote buffers – wildlife, water quality, not much production benefit High

Promote alternative crops – biomass, bioenergy

Promote buffers

Soil health system – no till, cover crops

Drainage water management

Habitat – plant grasses and trees

Manage crop land to best potential for macroinvertebrates and cover

o Prairie – some grazed, some ungrazed, riparian Low end

Prescribed fire

Drought management plan Medium

Grazing BMPs o Rotational grazing o Delayed haying o Delayed grazing

Native seed mix (or managing for native grasses) High end

Prescribed fire

Drought management plan

Grazing BMPs o Rotational grazing o Delayed haying o Delayed grazing

Native seed mix (or managing for native grasses)

Wetland package – riparian habitat o Grassed or biofuel buffers o Manure management

Branding / certification for products (bird‐friendly beef) o Work on watershed scale with landowners

o Riparian Small & Mid‐sized Streams

High end strategy

Acquisition of buffers and wetlands

Connectivity of wetland and stream in patch adjacent to stream

Re‐meandering (hydrologic restoration) o Remove dams o Streambank stabilization

Medium

Easements

Dam removal

Streambank stabilization

Patch connectivity


Low end

Buffer

Streambank stabilization

o Floodplain / Bottomland Hardwoods in Mainstem Rivers Upper Midwest Floodplain

High end o Connectivity / Backwater habitat o Levee breaks – state of the art water management with fish

passage structures and staffed o Extreme invasive control o To control nutrients, put a water control structure at upper end

of floodplain o Vegetative control – forestry, manipulation to control invasives,

promote natural community.

Medium o Connectivity o Stop log water control structure o Grate to stop invasive carp o Vegetation or reforestation

Low end o Remove all artificial drainage, leaving them in place for extreme

water events o Moderate vegetation restoration

Lower Mississippi Valley

High end o Expand area of big woods in reforestation (acquisition) o Convert marginal croplands to forest (easement) o Vegetation o Water control structures o Invasive wildlife management (nutria, feral swine) o Water diversions – add sediment to create wetlands o Re‐open old river channels

Low end o Regulate diversions to retain nutrients (maintaining) o Wetland reforestation o Dredge material used to create wetlands

Next steps for models o Extremes in terms of low and high end implementation options to compare across a

range to see how framework works. o Decisions made as LCCs can help other ecosystem services, helping us to encourage

policy change that goes with the strategies. There are 7 LCCs involved in 4 FWS regions. A lot of fire power. Reaching out to

other agencies on LCC Steering Committees. Could make a powerful statement.


Part of all getting on the same page to say what needs to happen. This attribute table may reveal what we can do now with current resoruces and packages. Then what could we do with new policy. What are you thinking about when you say things need to be different. Torrent of ideas can be confusing. If you could focus on same page, showing benefits, would be more transparent about what change you actually want. Use in scenario planning.

Collaboration Strategy (Gregg Elliott) ‐ Table outlines the basics of a systematic strategic

approach to communications.

Outreach for the MRB/GH project

Short-term communications/stories Weaving together perspectives from 3 stakeholder/value groups to create brief articles to share among the LCCs/partners about this process - possibly from perspective of key stakeholders (wildlife, ag, hypoxia). Is this the way to go? Ideas on how to increase the reach of this news among partners? (Ashley’s working group) Long-term: Develop a communications strategy 1. Who is the audience? 2. What is the message? 3. General time frame for outreach by goals (assume consensus messaging

comes first, etc) FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES

ACTIONS

Wildlife Ag Producers Gulf Water

Quality

Consensus Messaging

1 1 1

Projects/monitoring 1 1 1

Research (LCC +) 1 1 1

Policy changes 1 1 1


o Who is the audience? Working on huge grassland effort in Missouri, difficult to get right message to

people.

Majority of land is in private ownership. Plan and models are great with practices to implement. Nothing will be done without landowner on our side.

Need marketing strategy and communications plan. Biologists are good at answering problem, but not talking to landowners. Great to share information.

Multiple audiences

Decision makers

o What is the message? Report back to LCCs about what we are accomplishing. Has to be scaled down to

state or local level. That’s where real water will be carried—at State Technical Committees and in watershed focal areas. When these are ready, we need adoption at local level. Pieces will sum up to total.

Long‐term, big picture strategy.

Message out of the gate. The Steering Committees are aware of what we are doing, say it’s very big. When they see the information, they may be able to take a leg and champion it locally.

What is best way to do that initially? Look at one or two states in the watershed?

Realistically in the future, how would local groups use this information. How to step this down to a workable stage as multiple LCCs.

Best story was Gulf of Mexico Alliance who brought Iowa farmers to the Gulf to make connection a thousand miles away with shrimpers.

Must make it real on the ground, take systems‐scale planning, translate it into story that is easily understood on the landscape.

o General time frame for outreach by Actions (assume consensus messaging comes first,

etc) Modeling, implementation, policy change – all of the above.

Everyone get on same page with consensus messaging, then policy changes.

o Each has a message about what we are doing for Wildlife, for Agricultural Producers, and for Gulf hypoxia. May be a different audience and differing messages for

each with some overlap. Producer may be more interested in what it means to their bottom line. Feasibility in addition to effects on the Gulf.

o Consensus Messaging – How to explain MRB/GH Initiative consistently to different

organizations involved with LCCs. Inherent problem with modeling is communicating it. Easy to get bogged down

in details. Need consensus in model building. How to address that?


People tune out when they hear the word “model” and fail to see it as a tool.

All models are wrong, but some are useful – people focus on the “wrong” part.

Most near‐term outreach need. This is so huge. Responses will be all over the

map. Concentrate on nearest term set of audiences and messaging. Haven’t really seen output from models.

Time lapse photographs from headwaters of Platte River to Missouri River could be a template or tied in.

In the best place with each person to discuss. Preaching to the choir, most is accepting the message.

o Most of the public don’t necessarily agree. Don’t see or understand the issue. Map of watersheds in the Basin—one‐sixth of US—and show to group of people. Most will not know how to comprehend that. They aren’t used to that scale.

o Good to ask decision makers for policy changes. We are in this position looking for the fix. A lot known over long time, not significantly changing as a trend. Need to consider decision makers responsible to people. Must electrify the public to popularize the interest.

Biologists and scientists aren’t best at doing this. Demonstrate stake that everyone has in this.

How can you make a difference? Boil down potential solutions to simple understandable technically and economically feasible statements.

People we need to engage don’t do this on a daily basis. Just a farmer, have to make ends meet.

Marketing conservation delivery o Need to think about marketing a desired product. Not as

conservation practices, but clean water from ecosystem services. As a conservation community, we have a long ways to go. There are people who know how to do that. Engage them to inform how to do that and what it would cost.

o Strategic planning for entire LCC network recommendation that was most exciting was communications in general. May need to focus on specific initiative. What would happen if we used entire multi‐LCC budget

for one year toward only communications, investing in professional marketing strategy.

o Keep the consumers in mind.


Consistent theme o Find one theme that all stakeholders can relate to such as

“Sustainable infrastructure”. Communicate infrastructure success, needs (e.g., structure, functions and connectivity), model feedback in simple terms like a dashboard. Including agricultural industry on the dashboard might build some trust. Complicated science stays behind the dashboard. Groups like Practical Farmers of Iowa could facilitate

o Audiences – Audiences relate to decision makers for Fundamental Objectives.

Gulf Water Quality – Who would that be? EPA? Who would we talk to that is administratively responsible?

Depends on what policy changes you are after. Then figure out which agencies or partners. Who would we message in one Objective that wouldn’t affect other columns.

Hypoxia Task Force o Goals Committee met recently and will release a revised

strategy that includes interim targets. o Will also formalize partnerships in State, Federal and

Partnership Strategies. o This effort is being talked about in that group. o Has not been made public yet. o Charlie Wooley, Deputy Regional Director, and Glen Salmon

made presentation and were invited to participate on the Task Force.

Gulf of Mexico Alliance o Had a deadline for comment.

Agricultural Producers ‐ Who would be the target for Agricultural Producers?

o Change to “Land Managers”? As land managers, could be doing better for mutual

benefit. o Field to Market – large strategy for USDA as significant

connection for sustainable sourcing of products. o USDA o MRBI – Starting a review of those watersheds. o Number of decisions could be influenced. Need to find the

decision makers. o NRCS State Technical Committee members – Establish priorities

and ranking. Talk to local Working Groups and Conservation Districts who establish priorities for the region. Get guidance from mapping and modeling to influence their decisions.

Extension Services ‐ Don’t dismiss or neglect value of extension services, both Land Grant and Sea Grant, are viewed as trusted sources. Potentially valuable tool.


Consumers of agricultural products. o Societal values will shift policy.

Celebrities / Organization Campaigns already push clean water o Tom Hanks could do a Bubba Gump message – and that’s all I’m

going to say about that! o Gulf of Mexico Alliance funded shrimpers documentary. Those

key people may be interested in aligning efforts. o Practical Farmers of Iowa – grassroots group. Could connect

them with grassroots stakeholders in southern part of the basin?

o Delta Farmers Advocating Resource Management – lower basin grassroots organization

o Illinois Council on Best Management Practices.

Regional collaboratives ‐ Must get to smaller scale. o Joint Ventures. o Conservation delivery networks in Arkansas, Mississippi,

Louisiana, Texas where private lands extension work through what the landowners need then achieve environmental values.

Agencies ‐ For US Forest Service, Gulf hypoxia may not be on our radar. We know nutrients is part of what we do.

o We could make strategic changes if it were communicated that way. Can redirect Forest Plans to address hypoxia.

o Policy changes from NGOs (TNC) who could lobby. o NRCS State Technical Committees.

Corporations / Private Entities – Field to market task force reaching out to private entities. BP and others want to be a part of similar efforts. Breweries use a lot of water and crops.

State Nutrient Management Strategies ‐ As a Hypoxia Task Force coordinating committee member and State Nutrient Strategy coordinator thank you all for considering what it is you can bring to the effort. There is a lot needing to be done and we need many hands to lift the load. A sincere effort by Wildlife professionals and their organizations to help relieve Hypoxia will simultaneously accomplish good things for wildlife. Implementing state nutrient strategies will require a significant step up of action across the basin. Please help lead the way.

Conservation delivery Programs – How will MRB/GH Initiative help guide strategic communications in a range of programs within the conservation community?

o Program level – Region 4 Fisheries doesn’t have private lands biologists, so what strategies need to be communicated so we


know how we can contribute. Assume it will be on habitat level, but not directly with private landowner. This works through with fish barrier removal funds.

Need to have courage and faith in process to score projects within these areas that are eligible for funds higher than in other areas.

Have mandates, but give them additional weight in ranking. Not additional funds, but allocation of existing resources.

Region 4 Fisheries may have their own ranking that is higher, but this would be higher than some other things. Align in same direction.

Same for EPA, NRCS, NGOs.

Research (LCC and others)

Policy change

Decision makers – for all three objectives

Resource allocation

We are not all on the same page, but if we could all face the same direction, would be great. Allocate resources when applicable, stack them.

Highperformingwatershedsaspotentialendusers (examples) – Identify geographic areas where pilot projects may be initiated given the existence of capacity to promote and adopt conservation practices.

o Boone River Watershed, Iowa (Iowa Soybean Association, Chris Jones) o Healthy Rivers INitiative Indiana (Wabash River) o Kickapoo River, Wisconsin o Big Darby, Ohio o Yellow River basin in Iowa o Lower Mississippi Joint Venture – conservation delivery network o North American Wetland Conservation Act o Edwards Plateau (Hill Country Alliance) o Confluence Partnership, Missouri meets Mississippi River (wetlands, habitats) o Ohio Watershed in Distress Program, Ohio Dept Agriculture ‐ requires nutrient

management plan for agricultural activity, participation by regulation, reminds others to act.

o MRBI – use SPARROW models to prioritize watersheds, county staff pick subwatersheds as HUC10 with landowner interest and participation, focused on nutrient reduction.

o Mackinaw River Partnership, Illinois (TNC) – paired watersheds for city of Bloomington o Conservation Delivery Networks – work in Joint Ventures in lower basin o Delta FARM (Mississippi) o REACH Program working with o MRBI working lands and wetland restoration o WREP Batture Lands – wetlands restoration


o Middle MRB Working Group – Middle Misssippi River Partnership o Upper Mississippi River Basin Group o Root River, MN in Driftless Area o Fishers and Farmers Fish Habitat Partnership o Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance – promote ecologically sound practices to

restore multiple benefits on grasslands with bioenergy focus, including grazing lands. Feasibility study for 30 million acres of grassland will be doing large‐scale modeling work on wildlife and water quality.

o LMRCC & Army Corps work ‐ dike notching and the ILT multi‐LCC grant o LMVJV/GCJV Conservation Delivery Networks o Miss‐Mo Confluence Partnership program: working in confluence of Mo River and Ms

River ‐ combined with DU easements (USFWS PFW) ‐ connections to Busch family donations to DU; involved Hager Hinge Co & Anheuser Busch plus other businessmen ‐ (they are landowners, mostly duck hunt clubs in poor condition) 60,000

o ask NBCI for examples of local groups o Green Trees program for growing bioenergy crop, restoring hardwoods and C

sequestration payments o Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. in Edwards Plateau ‐ Guadalupe Bass recover (one of the

fish habitat partnerships) o Tara ‐ large estate near Vicksburg managed as hunt club o Prairie Plains Resource Institute in Nebraska o USFS Forest Stewardship program o Mississippi state water quality initiative (identified in the background reading) o Coordinated Agricultural Products project – multi‐million dollar grants to look at supply

chain of bioenergy production. CenUSA in Iowa. Louisiana State University cane production. Will model wildlife benefits.

o Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force o Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Closingcomments&nextsteps – Round robin of participants to evaluate approach and provide advice on next steps.

o Appreciate patience with the measured pace from smaller to larger group through rapid prototyping in SDM. This was a huge step. Don’t want to go too fast to trip and fail, but be respectful of work already being done. Revisited problem statement for buy‐in. Reviewing objectives, range of strategies, to start all facing same direction. Is this chair too big? Energized that collectively we can make good progress.

o Consider going beyond a directionally correct menu of actions to setting LCC nutrient reduction objective(s) as a result of the aggregate actions that you influence. Don't worry about transport science to the Gulf, but instead work with your friends in water quality management to assign nutrient reduction values to the actions you take so that you can link your goals and the action levels needed to achieve those goals.

o Continuous communication is where we need to take another step. Key strategies on how and who we communicate too will be very important. Using models for alignment and consistency across the basin.

o Will help states like Indiana as we focus limited funding and technical resources. Having a common multi‐faceted approach to meet mltiplle objectives. Shared vision will have


the most power. Agriculture doing something on our side to help wildlife also. As our employees work, they think about wildlife and you think about agriculture.

o Thanks to Max for working through this. Have been involved over past year. Have come a long ways.

o Have delivered conservation, grew up on a farm. Don’t lose sight of the conservation delivery network opportunity. We give them the canvas. Let them paint it. They know how to work with farmers. Give them a road map. When maps are done, show vision, look at visual representation of watershed that is large with string of pearls, connected habitats to delivery conservation to mutually benefit nutrient export. It’s not too big. The North American Waterfowl Plan didn’t listen to “that chair is too big.” First shot of wildlife delivery for nutrients and agriculture. If that’s all we get, that’s a great start.

o Curious to see how to address talking about motivating individuals living in urban centers. How can that be done so that fingers aren’t pointed at farmers and farmers are recognized as conservationists. Get city people involved with farmers.

o Has been an honor to be in room with everyone working on this issue. Amazed at how hard the natural resource professionals work. Appreciate all work you are doing every day as well as this effort.

o Has been great learning opportunity to hear about work being done on the ground. Don’t have that field experience. Thanks for keeping us on task. Would be helpful to have sense for what the plan is, timeline, end product, and continually remind people of the problem statement so we don’t go too far out of scope.

o Eye opener to see complexity in factors that go into figuring out how to fix the problem. Have been able to see.

o Thank everyone for hard work. When you go down road without knowing where you will end up, appreciate strength of knowledge in this room. Look forward to getting this to grow with understanding among others. Can’t emphasize communication enough. Know it’s important, but as resource professionals and conservation community, hard to find funding for that and to come up with right messaging. If we drop the ball there, everything we talk about will be for naught. The public interest, if we can pique it, they will get it.

o From LCC Steering Committee and Science Team perspective, will want a summary to take back for most immediate partnerships. Was great to talk agricultural economics.

o This is a huge, overwhelming and impressive undertaking. Extremely important. Will be in touch to do justice to beginning stages of communications. Whether headquarters decides to put project money toward communications, could do a multi‐LCC proposal for funding. Looking at list of participants, everyone could provide a picture to remember participants.

o Knowledge in this room. Two years ago, was looking at LiDAR and trees on computers. Now looking at 180 million acre land classification from Canada to the Gulf. As we move forward with communications and modeling, involve the landowner, people we want to do this as part of the planning. Ask them what they are willing to do. Most people want to do the right thing. They may have highly effective ideas. Ask them why they want to be involved.

o Appreciate input on large scale landscape conservation design. o Have been with Hypoxia Task Force Coordinating Committee for number of years. A lot

is lessons learned from task force that did not operate that smoothly. Started out with lofty goal to reduce hypoxia to 5,000 sq km which is a third the size today and back


then—not a lot of progress. Original action plan mentioned significant funding that never came through. It was still too lofty. Other major problem is everyone was not facing the same direction. A lot of battles on task force and committee between Iowa, Illinois, the coast on resource issues and politics. Has turned a big corner. Now attitude is facing same direction. Starting to get act together making progress. Don’t see it yet, but coming. Money put into it with MRBI $80 million per year over 4 years. One of the tricks for task force recent success on predicted progress is to quantify goals more than in the past with State Strategies, some quantitative. Minnesota good example with how much nutrient reduction. Get very quantitative about goals, short and long‐term, large‐ and small‐scale. If we don’t reduce hypoxia, have we been successful? Can capture local short term success. Capture that by being quantitative up front. Enthusiasm and desire to do something up here. Will bring that message back to NOAA to make an impression.

o There is a good parallel in Lake Erie watershed with a lot of efforts to quantify and set targets. Freshwater, phosphorus instead of nitrogen, but similar fixing nutrient retention. Communicate with Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

o Thanks for chauffeuring us through this process. Shared energy and vision will make a difference when we share this back home.

o First time to work on hypoxia workshop. Learned a lot. US ACOE is project funded through specific authorizations. Most work in Memphis District is in agricultural areas. Have learned a lot about buffers, land treatment from NRCS, but also will carry this knowledge back to office on additional ideas that we could consider.

o Have been to quite a few Mississippi Basin meetings. Adds complexity. Divisions between upper and lower basins. Congratulate you on including the whole basin. In NRCS, see benefits of landscape conservation initiatives, particularly for water quality. Getting bigger bang for buck on targeting. This will help improve. Hope we can be clear on what this is and what it is not. This is a strategy to align with or improve ongoing conservation efforts to benefit wildlife, water quality and agricultural sustainability. This is NOT an attempt to be top‐down program viewed as federal land grab. Using terms like “structured decision making” if you are not clear on who the decision is for, could be problem. In Arkansas, 90% of land is privately owned. Help producers with technical information so they can make decisions. We don’t make decisions ourselves.

o Thank everyone for being here. Thank Glen for coming to Mobile to GCPO LCC Steering Committee and feeling the burden of responsibility for Gulf hypoxia. He took that charge seriously, as did the ETPBR Steering Committee. Worry about whether the chair is too big. Important, serious question, but LCCs were established to take on the big issues like climate change. Must remember what our role is and where we fit in. lots of smart people working on this for a long time. Have to be humble. Agree on Mike’s comments about what it is not. Needs to be a system scale endeavor – how system works, let local folks worry about how to implement it once we provide the science. See the modeling and mapping move forward to provide information to them.

o Encourage planners that we have struggled mightily in our group on understanding the true problem and outcomes, what we are being asked to measure. Define those things very discretely. Have had fantastic conversations. Need to get a handle on the scale of the problem.

o View this as an opportunity to design wildlife conservation, not a problem.


WorkshopPlanningTeamandParticipantLists

PlanningTeamMax Post van der Burg, USGS, SDM facilitation Will Allen & Michael Schwartz, The Conservation Fund, landscape conservation design Gwen White, ETPBR LCC, project contact Steve Ashby, Miss State Univ Nicole Athearn, GP LCC Bill Bartush, GCP LCC Andy Bishop, Rainwater Basin JV Jean Brennan, AppLCC Sarah Carlson, Practical Farmers of Iowa Laura Christianson, TCF, agricultural engineering Larry Clemens, TNC Bob Clevenstine, FWS Gulf Blueprint Conni Conner, FWS SA Greg Cononver, MICRA Megan Cross, Univ MN Craig Czarnecki, FWS SA Ryan Drum, HAPET Cynthia Edwards, GCP LCC Jamie Ellis, INHS, ETPBR Prairie TAG Dennis Figg, Missouri DOC Tim Fox, USGS GAP Pat Heglund, Refuge planning Doug Helmers, private lands Jeanne Holler, Minnesota Valley NWR Barb Jones, FWS Migratory Birds Heidi Keuler, Fishers & Farmers FHP Michael Langston, SC CSC Jane Ledwin, FWS Missouri Dave Lemarie, NCTC Alan Lewitus, NOAA

Alexis Londo, OSU (GIS) Susan McIntyre, INHS, ETPBR Agroecology TAG Paul McKenzie, Columbia ES Kraig McPeek, Illinois ES Craig Miller, INHS, Midwest HD TAG Rick Nelson, PPP LCC Wayne NelsonStastny, Missouri River Nat Res Committee Lori Nordstrom, FWS Private Lands Mike Olson, PPP LCC Jeremy Peichel, US Forest Serv Bradly Potter, UMGL LCC Mary Ratnaswamy, NE CSC Stephen Ricks, Mississippi ES Angeline Rodgers, FWS R4 John Rogner, UMGL LCC Jason Rohweder, USGS GAP Glen Salmon, ETPBR LCC Michael Schwartz, TCF Matt Schwarz, FWS Contaminants Greg Soulliere, Upper Miss/Great Lakes JV Ryan Stockwell, NWF John Tirpak, GCPO LCC Greg Wathen, GCPO LCC Jack Waide, USGS Cynthia Williams, FWS R4 Fisheries Tim Yager, Upper Mississippi NWR


MemphisParticipantsMississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Landscape Conservation Design Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop August 12‐14, 2014, Ducks Unlimited Headquarters, Memphis, TN Individuals who participated online are in italics. All others were onsite in Memphis.

First Last Organization Program/Expertise City State

Will Allen The Conservation

Fund Green infrastructure Shepherdstown WV

Gray Anderson Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Lower Miss Valley JV, East Gulf Coastal Plains JV Nashville TN

Wayne Anderson

Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency State Nutrient

Management Plan, MN Minneapolis MN

Steve Ashby Mississippi State

University Stennis Space

Center MS

Bill Bartush US FWS GCP LCC Lafayette LA

Eugene Braig Ohio State University

Aquatic systems, Agriculture extension Columbus OH

Sarah Carlson Practical Farmers

of Iowa Farmer‐led conservation Des Moines IA

Laura Christianson The Conservation

Fund Agricultural practices Shepherdstown WV

Bob Clevenstine US FWS Gulf Blueprint Moline IL

Greg Conover USFWS MICRA Marion IL

Megan Cross US FWS Univ MN Minneapolis MN

Tom Davenport US EPA Water quality Chicago IL

Scott Davis The Nature Conservancy

Lower Mississippi River Project Nashville TN

Cynthia Edwards

Wildlife Management

Institute GCP LCC Lafayette LA

Gregg Elliott Kgregg Consulting LCC Communications Nashville TN

Doug Helmers US FWS Private lands, Neal Smith

NWR Prairie City IA

Donovan Henry US FWS Ohio River Fish Habitat

Partnership Marion IL

Skip Hyberg NRCS Farm Service Agency Washington DC

Yetta Jager Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Modeling biodiversity TN

Steve John

Agricultural Watershed Institute

Agricultural watershed management Decatur IL


Kristen Johnson US Dept of Energy Energy & prairie pothole

ecology Washington DC

Heidi Keuler US FWS Fishers & Farmers FHP Minneapolis MN

Andrew Kimmel Bluestem

Communications Mississippi River Network Chicago IL

Lyn Kirschner USDA NRCS Soil Conservationist Madison WI

Ted LaGrange

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission State wetland programs Lincoln NE

Ed Lambert US Army Corps of

Engineers Environmental Branch

Chief Memphis TN

Jane Ledwin US FWS Missouri River fisheries Columbia MO

Kerry Leigh Natural Land Institute Land trusts Rockford IL

Alan Lewitus NOAA Gulf Hypoxia Task Force Washington DC

Alexis Londo Ohio State University GIS, data management Columbus OH

Kraig McPeek US FWS Fisheries ES Moline IL

Rick Nelson US FWS PPP LCC Bismarck ND

Kate Pinkerton US EPA

OWOW‐ Assessment and Watershed Protection

Division Washington DC

Max Post van der

Berg USGS SDM, PPP LCC Bismarck ND

Nancy Rabalais

Louisiana Universities

Marine Consortium Gulf hypoxia Chauvin LA

Susan Rupp

Enviroscapes Ecological Consulting

Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance Bella Vista AR

Glen Salmon US FWS ETPBR LCC Bloomington IN

Nick Schmal US Forest Service Fisheries Milwaukee WI

Michael Schwartz The Conservation

Fund Planning & focal species Shepherdstown VA

Sherri Shoults US FWS R4 Fisheries Heber Springs AR

Brian Smith US Dept of

Transportation Fed highways ‐ roadsides,

pollinators Chicago IL

John Sowl US National Park

Service Midwest Region Omaha NE

Kelly Srigley‐Werner US FWS

Missouri Private Lands Office Columbia MO

Ryan Stockwell National Wildlife

Federation Senior Agriculture Program Manager Medford WI

Mike Sullivan USDA ‐ NRCS Arkansas State Conservationist Little Rock AR


Robert Swanson USGS Nebraska Water Science

Center Lincoln NE

Pat Turman USDA – NRCS TN State Agronomist Nashville TN

Kimberlyn Velasquez

US EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds ORISE Hypoxia Team Washington DC

Greg Wathen TN Wildlife

Resources Agency GCPO LCC Nashville TN

Gwen White US FWS ETPBR LCC Bloomington IN

Carol Williams Univ Wisc ‐ Madison

Agronomy Midwest Conservation

Biomass Alliance Madison WI

Meghan Wilson USDA NRCS MRBI Coordinator Washington DC

Mike Woodside USGS NAWQA, Hypoxia Task

Force Nashville TN

Scott Yaich Ducks Unlimited Waterfowl conservation Memphis TN

Shannon Zezula USDA NRCS Indiana State Technical

Committee, FOTG Indianapolis IN


MemphisWorkshopAgendaDay 1: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 – Implementation & Collaboration Anticipated results and output from discussions: Understanding of decision analysis models. Agreement on collaborative approach needed to advance implementation. Timeline for accomplishing further consultation and collaborative work. Agreement on technical resources (tools and staff) that will be needed and which decision makers and stakeholder viewpoints will be required in the future. Preparation for technical involvement in determining feasibility, stakeholder involvement and model refinement. Small groups will be organized by expertise and geography to bring a range of perspectives, including geographic and stakeholder distinctions.

Time Topic 10:00-12:00 Welcome, Workshop Process & Overview

Welcome from Ducks Unlimited (Scott Yaich, DU) Review of workshop goals (Glen Salmon, ETPBR LCC) Participant introductions Overview of SDM Draft Models (Max Post van der Burg, USGS) Spatial analysis & landscape design tools (Michael Schwartz, TCF) Introduction to Collective Impact collaboration approach (Gwen White) Q&A – Reflections on process to date and refinements in this workshop

- Do these objectives capture the mutual interests? - What are the measurable attributes for these objectives? - What is the range of alternatives? At what scale do they operate? - What are the effects of those actions on our objectives? - What information is needed to build those relationships?

12:00 – 12:30 Lunch (bring cash to order sandwich delivered from nearby deli) 12:30 – 2:00 Programs & Actions - Small groups based on geography (self-facilitated)

What can we do to put more conservation on the ground in these areas? Which fish & wildlife conservation actions coincide with these focal areas

(4 systems and geography) that also would have the most benefit for water quality and agricultural productivity?

How do scale, location and seasonality affect the opportunities to provide multiple benefits from these conservation actions?

2:00 – 3:00 Constraints & Priorities - Small groups based on geography (self-facilitated) What do we need to know or do to focus implementation of these actions? What physical, social, jurisdictional or policy factors present constraints or

incentives for implementing coordinated actions in these areas? What could we do within these constraints? What could we do if those

constraints were lifted? Which sets of conservation actions are immediately feasible? Which alternatives would be worth pursuing over the long-term?

3:00 – 3:30 Break – facilitators prepare draft documents for group review 3:30 – 5:00 Group Reports & Next Steps – reconvene entire group

Refine strategic approach to collaborative implementation. Participant reflections on process and next steps (round robin) Closing comments and preparation for technical work in Days 2-3

5:00 – 8:00 Adjourn for dinner at local restaurants

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop (Multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17) Draft Notes – Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop, Aug 12‐14, Memphis, TN of 79 Day 2: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 – Objectives, Performance Measures, Actions, Science Needs Anticipated results and output from discussions: A clear understanding and more well-defined structure of the problem, which will include a refinement of a conceptual model of how an integrated strategy is linked to the specified objectives. The goal is to refine details and ensure all perspectives are represented in the description of the opportunities for integrating and targeting actions. Small groups will be organized by expertise in the four habitat/systems: (1) modified headwaters/working lands; (2) prairies/savannas; (3) forested riparian; and (4) bottomland hardwoods/mainstem) from a range of perspectives, including geographic and stakeholder distinctions. Time Topic 8:30-10:00 Implementation & Model Refinement

Review outcomes of Day 1 - Implementation Discussion Overview of Technical Models and areas for refinement Review and adjust process for Day 2

10:00 – 10:15 Break 10:15 – 11:30 Objectives Hierarchy – entire group w/online connection

Do these capture the primary Fundamental and Means Objectives? Are there other objectives? Can we be more specific about objectives? What are common interests? Is anything missing? Review Influence Diagrams for relationships between objectives.

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch (bring cash to order Garibaldi’s Pizza delivered from nearby) 12:30 – 1:30 Performance Measures – entire group w/online connection

What are the Performance Measures for these objectives? What are the time frame(s) for measurement / assessment? Are these the right Focal Habitats/Systems and Species? Are they the most efficient indicators? Do they appeal to all interests? What information will we need to estimate outcomes?

1:30 – 3:00 Alternative Actions & Consequences – small groups in 4 focal systems Which actions provide multiple benefits that meet objectives within this

specific Focal System? Which sets of actions would you naturally use together as a “strategy”?

3:00 – 3:15 Break 3:15 – 4:30 Uncertainty & Sensitivity Analysis – small groups

Are relationships between key actions and consequences defined well? What models or science are available? What additional models or science are necessary?

4:30 – 5:00 Mid-point evaluation – reconvene entire group Review Day 2 and preview Day 3 Round robin of participant insights from Day 2.

5:00 Adjourn for the evening (dinner on your own)

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop (Multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17) Draft Notes – Implementation & Model Refinement Workshop, Aug 12‐14, Memphis, TN of 79 Day 3: Thursday, August 14, 2014 – Trade-Offs, Management Portfolios & Next Steps Anticipated results and output from discussions: Refinement of models, based on full range of perspectives from wildlife, water quality and agriculture, including human dimensions (e.g., economics, policies, values, incentives). Identification and prioritization of research needs and opportunities for short-term or long-term future actions. Time Topic 8:30 – 10:00 Review all SDM steps for iterative improvements

Step through all aspects of the SDM process with progress and examples. Which models need to be further refined or constructed? Review and adjust process for Day 3

10:00 – 10:30 Break – small groups at tables 10:30 – 12:00 Consequences Tables & Selection of Strategies

Examine how well Actions perform against Objectives. Are there sets of Actions that go together naturally? How do values of stakeholders affect weighting and trade-offs? How will climate change affect consequences?

12:00 – 12:30 Lunch (bring cash to order sandwich delivered from nearby deli) 12:30 – 2:00 Closing comments & next steps

Next steps for continued modeling & implementation Round robin of participant insights & individual evaluations

2:00 Adjourn & Evaluation – Thank you for your insights! Safe travels.


PresentationsandMapServiceProducts

Presentation:WorkshopoverviewandSDMcomponents

Presentation:InternetMapServices(TheConservationFund)

MapServiceDataInventory

DataAcquisitionStatus

WebMapServiceUsersGuide

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Mississippi Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Memphis Workshop, Aug 12‐14, 2014

8/14/2014

1

INITIAL DRAFT PRESENTATIONStrategic allocation of wildlife

conservation efforts to reduce Gulf hypoxia

Structured Decision Making Workshop Summary

Memphis, August 12‐14, 2014

Prepared by Max Post van der Burg1 and

Gwen White2

1USGS, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND2USFWS, Eastern Tall Grass and Big Rivers LCC, Bloomington, IN

1. Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC Rick Nelson, Mike Olson

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

3. Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers LCC Glen Salmon, Gwen White

4. Great Plains LCC ‐‐ James Broska5. Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC ‐‐ Greg Wathen, John Tirpak6. Appalachian LCC ‐‐ Jean Brennan7. Gulf Coast Prairie LCC ‐‐ Bill Bartush, Cynthia Edwards

Mississippi River LCCsLandscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs)

LCCs = Natural Resource Management A Think Tank for Agencies & Organizations

Crisis 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.

Will this be another silent spring?

…and in the river and Gulf systems.

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.

Tiles Quickly Drain Fertilizers Off Farms and Downstream


8/14/2014

2

USDA - NRCS MRBI Priority Areas & ActionsExamples of Animal Enhancements in the Conservation Stewardship Program (NRCS Farm Bill)

Riparian forest buffers

Field borders

Grazing management

Patch burning

Shallow water habitat

Prairie restoration for grazing

Native perennials for biomass

Drainage water management

US Fish & Wildlife ServiceGulf Restoration Blueprint

NGOs – TNC, DU, PF, land trusts, etc.The Nature Conservancy teams in 10 states

Root River, Minnesota

Weaver Dunes - Zumbro River, Minnesota

Pecatonica River, Wisconsin

Wabash River, Indiana

Boone River, Iowa

Lower Cedar River, Iowa

Emiquon, Illinois

Horseshoe Lake, Illinois

Mackinaw River, Illinois

Spunky Bottoms, Illinois

Military Ridge Prairie Heritage Area, Wisconsin

Mingo Basin, Missouri

Lower Black River, Arkansas and Missouri

The Big Woods, Arkansas

Pine City Natural Area, Arkansas

St. Francis National Forest, Arkansas

Obion Creek and Bayou de Chien, Kentucky

Donaldson Point - Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee

Hatchie River, Tennessee

Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi

Atchafalya River, Louisiana

Bayou Bartholomew, Louisiana

Cat Island - Tunica Hills, Louisiana

Cypress Island, Louisiana

Tensas River Basin, Louisiana

Where is the highest value for aligning actions of multiple programs? Map high priority agricultural conservation core areas and corridors in subwatersheds at the intersection of:

- Nutrient export

- Species and habitat distribution

- Social capacity for implementation

- Connectivity for climate adaptation

What if we had a

Mutually Reinforcing Plan of Action?

Where to focus combined actions?Spatial Analysis & Optimization Tools

PurposeA shared vision to collaborative action through common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solutions by aligning agreed upon actions.

Optimal fish & shrimp habitat in 1960’s

Dead zone since the 1980s devoid of bottom fish & shrimp


8/14/2014

3

Collective Impact Collaborative Approach

Common Agenda - Shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach.

Shared Measurement - Collect data and measure results consistently to hold each other accountable.

Mutually Reinforcing Activities – Individualized expertise coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.

Continuous Communication - Build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation.

Backbone Organization – Coordination for the entire initiative among participating organizations and agencies.

Problem Components• Prime farmland – nutrient hungry crops

• Displaced prairie & river ecosystems

• Gulf hypoxia – soil & nutrient loss

• Climate change – migratory corridors

Incorporate wildlife habitat with BMPs for

water quality & agricultural production

Who is involved in the SDM framework development?o RESTORE Council, NFWF, NRCS, Gulf stateso Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, State Nutrient Reduction Planso FWS Refuges, USDA, USACE, TNC, DU, PF, etc.o Large-scale wildlife conservation plans - SWAPs, JVs, FHPs

MRB/ Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop August 12‐14, 2014

Ducks Unlimited Headquarters, Memphis, TN

Mississippi / Gulf Hypoxia Workshop Participants (50)

Universities:• Mississippi State University• Ohio State University• Louisiana University Marine Consortium• 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 • 7 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives• 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 Fish Habitat Partnership• Practical Farmers of Iowa• The Conservation Fund

• The Nature Conservancy• Wildlife Management InstituteState agencies:• Indiana DNR• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency• Nebraska Game & Parks Commission• Tennessee Wildlife Resources AgencyFederal agencies:• Army Corps of Engineers• Department of Energy• Department of Transportation• EPA (OWOW, HTF)• Fish & Wildlife Service • Forest Service• US Geological Survey (NAWQA, HTF)• National Park Service• NOAA • USDA Farm Service Agency• USDA NIFA• USDA NRCS (AR, IN, TN, MRBI)

Workshop Goals

• Feedback on preliminary structure

• Development of alternatives

• Simplifying conceptual models

• Predicting consequences

• Developing pieces of optimization tool

• Use of results ‐ collaboration

Why do we need a process?

• We’re good at making quick decisions in certain settings

– We’ve developed short‐cuts

• The problem is

– We often have to make decisions in settings where the benefits and negative impacts occur on different time scales or to different individuals

What makes decision making difficult?

• Governance

– Who makes the decision?

• Framing

– What are we trying to achieve and how?

• Predicting

– Can we predict the potential outcomes?

• Solving

– How do we choose a preferred alternative?


8/14/2014

4

SDM provides a framework

• Helps to frame a decision

• Helps identify impediments to the decision

• Provides tools to overcome impediments

Steps in Structured Decision Making (SDM)

Credit Jean Fitts Cochrane

When is SDM appropriate?

OBJECTIVES

Clear

Obscured

SCIENCE

Well Understood

Uncertain Disputed

Structured Decision Making

Conflict Resolution

Joint Fact

FindingAdaptive

Management

Step 1. Defining the Problem

• Start from right place

• Defines decision context:

1. Trigger(s)

2. Decision makers

3. Constraints

4. Scope and scale

5. Related decisions

MRB/Gulf Hypoxia InitiativeProblem Statement

How and where to best design and implement conservation delivery (habitat and species management) throughout the Mississippi River Basin in a way that benefits terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations, while simultaneously reducing the contribution of nutrients to Gulf hypoxia and balancing agricultural interests.

Step 2. Establish Objectives

• Object of interest and direction of preference

• Multiple types:

– Fundamental

– Means

– Process

– Strategic

• All other parts of analysis flow from objectives

• If not clear…might solve problem incorrectly


8/14/2014

5

Fundamental & Means Objectives

• Fundamental –Why we care about problem

– This is how we measure success of actions (performance measures).

• Means – How we get to fundamental objective

MRB/GH Initiative Objectives (blue) with Performance Measures (red)

Decrease Gulf Hypoxia

Increase Wildlife Benefits

Forested Riparian

Prairie

Bottomland

Hardwood

Increase Agricultural Productivity

Decrease Regulatory

Uncertainty

Increase Net Returns

Modified Headwater

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 Resilience

Example: Fundamental & Means Objectives for Farming System Choices

Means

FundamentalMaximize economic

sustainability

Maximize Net Returns

Maximize Crop Yield

Minimize Production Costs

Minimize Economic Risk

Minimize Exposure to

Market Changes

Minimize Negative Impacts

of Weather

Farming Systems

Floodplain Forest

Grazing Lands

Rice

Non‐ag uses:Golf coursesMunicipal waterAg uses:Nutrient cycling Alternative croppingProductivity :Hunting leasesTimberCarbon markets

Irrigation waterWaterfowl habitatCrop productionGreenhouse gasGroundwater protectionWater qualityEconomicsSoil healthNutrient & pest management

Stream buffersPollinatorsFence rows

InvasivesDroughtCattle weight gainWater qualityWater quantityIncome streamsAnimal healthAlternative marketsTransaction costs

Corn & Soybeans

ProductivityEdge or in‐field practicesWildlife species (incl urban)Water qualityMarket changes

Topics for Developing Means Objectives by Farming System

Cotton

Organic matterWater retentionNutrient mgtPest mgtCrop diversity (inclcover crops)

Performance Measures

Objective Measure

Wildlife Benefits “Cumulative” occupancy

Gulf Hypoxia Change in total N or P yield

Crop yield Change in total yield

Regulatory uncertainty ?

Conservation costs Total $ spent

How will we know if we are achieving objectives?• Created for lowest level fundamental objectives• Evaluate how alternatives effect objectives

Characteristics of UsefulPerformance Measures

Unambiguous ‐ Clear relationship between consequences and levels of metricDirect – Clearly related to objective of interestComprehensive ‐ Cover full range of possible consequencesOperational ‐ Suitable information available Understandable ‐ Readily understood and easily communicated


8/14/2014

6

Conservation targets & measurable attributes to monitor landscape‐scale impacts

What Indicator/Flagship Species Concern Biologists and Agriculture?

Pollinators (bees)

Predators / Pests

Soil biota

Declining species

Game species

Feeder birds (urban)

Crop diversity & resilience

Others?

Max. Wildlife Benefits

Forested Riparian Systems

Prairie Systems

Bottomland Hardwood Systems

MusselsCyanobacteriaVascular plantsRed‐eyed vireoAmerican redstartSmallmouth bassBlack redhorsePallid SturgeonShovelnose sturgeonPugnose minnow

Alligator garMallardsWood duckMusselsRed‐headed woodpeckerProthonotary WarblerCerulean Warbler Acadian Flycatcher

Henslow’s sparrow BobolinkPrairie chickenMonarch butterfly

Modified Headwater Systems

Crawfish frogBlue‐winged TealAmerican golden ploverSculpin

Four Ecological Systems (Focal Habitats & Possible Representative Species)

Step 3. Identify Alternative Actions

• What actions can we take to influence our fundamental objectives?

• Choose alternatives first, evaluate later

• Effort ($) in different strategies at various locations

Acquisition Voluntary

program

Forest

restoration

Enhancement

of existing site

Stream

restoration

Fee title None Natural

regeneration

Prescribed

burning

Bank

stabilization

Easement Stewardship

(5 yrs)

Planting (bare

root)

Thinning Armoring

Agreement

(10 yr)

Planting (RPM

‐ sapling)

Invasives

removal

Rock hard‐points

Agreement

(20 yr)

Excavation

Farming Systems

Floodplain Forest

Grazing Lands

Rice

ConnectivityHydrologic Habitat

Drainage water mgtWetlandsDraw down

Alt crops (forest)Invasives (veg)Marketing

Water mgtGroundwater useIrrigation efficiencyLocal water qualityFisheries

Nutrient mgtPest mgtBeneficial insects

Partial flooding fieldsMarginal rice landsWetlandsHunting/recreation

DroughtDiversificationWetlandsCrop insuranceFire (3‐5 yrs)

CattleGeneticsWeight gain

Water qualityRiparian mgtLevee integrity

InvasivesAlt marketsBird‐friendly beefBiofuels

Transaction costsChemical inputs

Mentor/awards

Corn & Soybeans

OxbowsTile line wetlandsStream buffersContour stripsNutrient efficiencyCover cropsTile discharge trtManure injection

Alt crops Markets / CooperativesPerennial biomassAnaerobic digesters

Alternative Actions by Farming System

Cotton

Irrigation efficiencySoil healthTillageCover crops

Grassed field bordersFeral hogs

Pest mgt (IPM)Water qualityBeneficial insects

Strategy Table – Headwaters/Working LandsWater mgt Nutrient

mgt (4 Rs)

Integrated

Pest Mgt

Soil

health

Crop

diversification

Buffer strips Restoration /

Establishment

Protection Grazing Prescribed

Fire

Surface &

tailwater

recovery (R)

Manure

injection

Diversified

crop

rotation

Cover

crops (R)

Perennial

crops (for

biofuels?)

Grassed

field

borders (C)

Wetland

restoration

Acquisition Rotational Pres. Fire

Rotate

soybeans with

rice (R)

Precision

nutrient

mgt

Scouting Reduced

tillage (R,

C) w/long

rotation

3 crops &

rotation

Riparian

buffers

Prairie

restoration

Easements

(wetland,

grass, etc)

Continuous

Double‐

cropped

crawfish w

rice (R)

Treatment

wetlands

Herbicide

groups

No till

w/cover

crops

Small grains Stream

buffers

Savanna

restoration

Partial

flooding of

fields (R)

Manure

mgt coop

Cultivatio

n

Reduce

fallow

periods

Contour

strips

Stream

restoration

Drainage

water mgt

(R,F) + Tile

Handling &

storage

Banded

vs.

broadcast

Crop

diversifica

tion (3

crops)

Prairie strips Prescribed fire

Contour vs.

herringbone

Late spring

test & side

dress

Strip

cropping

Adaptive

nutrient

mgt

Two‐stage

ditches

Irrigation

water mgt

Timing of

treatment

Native

perennials

Residue mgt Soil health Invasive

species

Soil health Cover crops

Strategy Table – Prairies / SavannasGrazing Forb

component

Integrated

Pest Mgt

Invasives Nutrient

mgt

Restoration Protection Prescribd

Fire

Timber stand

improvemnt

Delayed

haying

Native seed

mixes

Same as

IPM?

Grazing,

mech.

Chem (g,

ng)

Rotational

grazing

Restoring

hydrology

Fee title (p) Pres. Fire

(g and ng)

(for

savannas)

Delayed

grazing

Managed

intensive

grazing

Native,

Riparian

wetland

buffers

Easements

(p)

Rotational

systems

Short‐term

agreement

s

BMPs Supporting

ranchers

Riparian

wetlands

Grass

banks

Connectivity


8/14/2014

7

Strategy Table – Riparian Forest

Buffer strips Restoration Protection Connectivity

Native veg (grass) Dam removal Acquisition Connecting wetlands to

streams

Woody (native) Remeandering Easements (wetland,

grass, etc.)

Patch connection

Saturated Streambank stabilization

with native materials

Contour strips

Strategy Table – Bottomland Hardwood / MainstemHabitat mgt Nutrient

mgt

Integrated Pest

(weed?)

Management

Soil health

management

Crop

diversification

Buffer

strips

Restoration Protection Grazing Prescribed

Fire

Presc. Fire Post‐flood

cover

Farmable

floodplain

easements

Herbicide/Pest

Restore

hydrograph

Invasive control

Crop

management

Moist soil

management

Large‐scale river

diversions

BMPs – Forest

management,

harvesting

Desired forest

conditions

Focal Systems

Riparian Forest

PrairiesFloodplain / Lower Miss

Valley

Low BuffersBank stabilization

MediumEasementsDam removalBank stabilizationPatch connectivity

HighAcquisition BuffersWetlands

Connectivity RemeanderingHydrologic restorationDam removalBank stabilization

LowRegulate diversionsWetland reforestationDredge wetlands

HighAcquisition (forest)Convert marginal landVegetationWater control InvasivesWater diversionRe‐open channels

LowPrescribed fireDrought

MediumRotational grazingDelayed hayingDelayed grazingNative seed mix

HighPrescribed fireDrought mgtGrazing BMPsNative seed mixWetlandsGrassed buffersRiparian habitatManure mgt

Branding/certification

Headwaters / Working Lands

High, Medium, Low Cost Strategies by Focal System

Low Drainage lay out for mgt

MediumBuffers

HighAlt crops (biomass)BuffersSoil healthDrainage water mgtHabitat restorationCrop land for inverts

Floodplain / Upper Midwest

LowRemove drainageVeg restoration

MediumConnectivityStop log structureCarp gratesReforestation

HighConnectivityBackwatersLevee breaksControl structuresVegetation control

Step 4. Predict Consequences• Impact of alternative actions on objectives

• Often requires:

– Building a conceptual model

– Addressing uncertainty

Alternatives Objectives

Terrestrial

Wildlife

Aquatic

Wildlife

Agricultural

productivity

Implementation

costs

Gulf hypoxia

Acquisition &

restoration

$8,000/acre high N capture

Land

easements

Grassed buffer 0.3 $300/acre low N capture

CRP in block 0.8 $500/acre high N capture

Cover crops 0.01 $20/acre medium N

capture

Modified Headwaters ‐ Hydrology

“Terrestrial” Species

Fish/mussels Species

Gulf Hypoxia

Ag. Production

Regulatory Uncertainty

Terrestrial Habitat Quantity

Terrestrial Habitat Quality

Aquatic Habitat Quantity

Aquatic Habitat Quality

Nutrients

TileDrainage

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

Modified Headwaters – Land use

TerrestrialWildlife Species

Aquatic Species

(fish/mussels)

Gulf Hypoxia

Ag. Production


Hydrology

Tillage

Grazing systems

Planting/harvesting

Pollinators

Habitat Quantity

Integrated Weed/Pest Management

Natural/Conservation areas

Cellulosic Biofuels

Nutrients

Load reduction

Stream Quality

Upland Conservation practices

Wetland Conservation practices

Nutrient Management

Crop choice (GMOs)

Nutrient Management

Sedimentation

Climate and weather


8/14/2014

8

PrairieTerrestrial Wildlife

Species

Aquatic Species(fish/mussels )

Gulf Hypoxia

Agricultural Production


Restoration

Maintenance

Acquisition

Prairie Quantity

Terrestrial Habitat Quality

Stream Habitat Quantity

Stream Habitat Quality

Soil health

Nutrients

Infiltration

Runoff

Productive Acres

Base flow

Species Diversity

Conversion from Crop Land

Disturbance (e.g. fire)

Pollinators

Based on Figure 1 in Dowler, et al., 2013

Easement

Protection

Bottomland Hardwoods/Floodplains in Mainstem and Lower Rivers

Agricultural Productivity

(Flood Attenuation)

Terrestrial Wildlife (birds)

Aquatic Wildlife (fish, mussels)

Fish Production

Recreation (Hunting,

Fishing, Birding)

Notch Levees

Naturalize Channel Form

Naturalize Hydrograph

Floodplain Inundation

Vegetation Diversity & Abundance

Hydrologic Habitat

Connectivity

Forage Organism Diversity & Abundance

Climate Shifts

Substrate Composition & Heterogeneity

Flow Variation & Range

Invasive Plants

Water Surface Elevation

Land Use Change

Based on Figure 2 in Casper et al., 2009

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f ex

tin

ctio

nB

ased

on

nu

mb

er o

f p

airs

Habitat (acres)

low PE high PE

Response Models may be Simple or ComplexExample Model:

Extinction Risk Versus Habitat Acres Converted to Cropland

for Smallmouth Salamander

Focal Systems

Riparian Forest

PrairiesFloodplain / Mainstem

Impact on agricultureWater qualityConnectivityFishTerrestrialLow head damsRemeanderingStream bank stabilization

Water qualityTimber stand improvementReforestationAcquisitionConverted ag landInvasivesLarge river diversion

Impact on agricultureIntegrated Pest MgtWater qualityHydrology

Headwaters / Working Lands

Irrigation water mgtPerennial bioenergyBuffersTreatment wetlandsManure handlingSoil health

Gaps in Knowledge by Ecological SystemStep 5. Examine Trade‐offs

• Multiple objectives

– Actions differentially impact objectives

• Optimization tools

– Range from very simple (e.g. swing weights) to very complex (e.g. dynamic optimization)


8/14/2014

9

Which Actions create an Optimal Strategy if Objectives are weighted differently?

Values

How do stakeholder preferences differ?

How do agency mandates constrain options?

Gaps

Which relationships require more research?

What is feasible with available resources?

Scenario planning

How does climate change affect actions?

What about pricing in international markets?

Example: Weighting Objectives

Example

• Invest or don’t invest in habitat acquisition

Value

Relative abundance

Species 1

Species 2

Example

Site Value

SiteNo

management Management Cost Marginal Gain

1 1.1 1.8 20 0.0352 1.4 1.6 20 0.013 1.8 1.9 5 0.024 1.6 1.8 5 0.04

CostManagementNoManagement

gainMarginal

Comparing alternatives

Example

Optimal Portfolio

0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Uncertainty

Value

Optimal portfolio

Sub‐optimal portfolio

Spatial Scaling


8/14/2014

10

Scenario PlanningAgriculture can change quickly.

What drives adoption of practices?Preference, Payments, Land Use, Climate Change…

Est. Imidacloprid (neonicotinoid) use 1992 ‐ 2009

Farming Systems

Floodplain Forest

Grazing Lands

Rice

Flood insurance policyOwnershipAuthoritiesInfrastructureDrainageValue of nutrient cyclingNutrient mgt regulationsMarket limitationsBiofuelsCarbon sequestrationEcotourism / recreationInvasivesTax base (acquisition)WetlandsProgram awareness

Utilization Precision agTiming cover cropsSoil healthHigh value cropCostly inputsProgram complexity

CAFOsMarketsGrain‐fed beefMethanePartnersGenerational changeMessaging

Corn & Beans

Cover cropsTech knowledgeSeed supplyTillageCrop advisorsLeasing termsPerennial bioenergyMarketsEquipmentMindsetPolicy & economicsTechnologyTechnical assistanceDrainage mgtNatural gas costSocial change

Barriers & Opportunities for Implementation by Farming System

Cotton

Operation capacityPrecision ag dataHigh priced cropsTechnical assistanceWater supplyProgram complexity

Communications: Marketing ConservationWho needs to take action?

What do they need to know, feel or do?

• Messages ‐ consistent themes– Strategic planning (modeling)– Policy changes & infrastructure– Resource allocation (implementation)

• Audiences– Ag producers / land managers– Corporations / private entities (agribusiness)– Consumers of agricultural products

• Venues for delivering the messages– Extension services– Celebrities / organizations– Conservation delivery networks, Joint Ventures– Agency programs (NRCS State Technical Committees)– NGOs (policy changes)– State nutrient management strategies

End Users for Pilot ProjectsExamples: High Performing Project Areas

• Boone River Watershed, Iowa (Iowa Soybean Association)

• Wabash River, Indiana

• Kickapoo River, Wisconsin

• Big Darby, Ohio

• Yellow River basin in Iowa

• Joint Ventures

• Edwards Plateau (Hill Country Alliance)

• Confluence Partnership where Missouri meets Mississippi River (wetlands, habitats)

• Ohio Watershed in Distress Program, Ohio DeptAgriculture

• MRBI – use SPARROW models to prioritize watersheds, county staff pick subwatersheds

• Mackinaw River Partnership, Illinois (TNC) –paired watersheds for city of Bloomington

• Conservation Delivery Networks – work in Joint Ventures in lower basin

• Delta Farmers – Reach Program working with

• MRBI working lands and wetland restoration

• Batteure Lands – wetlands restoration

• Root River

• Driftless Area

• Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance

• LMRCC & Army Corps work ‐ dike notching and the ILT multi‐LCC grant

• NBCI for examples of local groups

• Green Trees program for growing bioenergy crop, restoring hardwoods and C sequestration payments

• Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. in Edwards Plateau ‐Guadalupe Bass recovery

• Tara ‐ large estate near Vicksburg managed as hunt club

• Prairie Plains Resource Institute in Nebraska

• USFS Forest Stewardship program

• Mississippi state water quality initiative (identified in the background reading)

• Coordinated Agricultural Products project –CenUSA in Iowa. Louisiana State University cane production.

• Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force

• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Internet Map Services Supporting the Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia SDM Workshop

Point of Contact: Will Allen

[email protected] 919-967-2248

12 August 2014

Michael Schwartz

mailto:[email protected]

Provide Data and Tools to Support SDM

Collect Data Areas of Opportunity for Water

Quality Benefits High Nutrient Export Multiple, aligned interests

Areas of Opportunity for Wildlife Benefits Habitats of interest Species of interest Multiple, aligned interests

Provide interactive web map service Spatial context to optimize

decision-making

Username: msriver

Password: etpbr

http://www.conservationgis.com/

Map service

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service

http://www.conservationgis.com/

Manage > Map Services


1.

2.

Click Map Service > + Click to load this service


Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Basemap

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Water Quality Focus Areas

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Conservation Designations

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Species

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Habitat Systems

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Map Service Green Infrastructure Networks

Conservation Opportunities


Identification of Water Quality Focus Areas 1.) Identify areas with highest potential for nutrient export Nitrogen yields from Ag. Lands

(SPARROW 2002) or; High proportion of cropland

(Cropland Data Layer 2013)

Mississippi River / Gulf Hypoxia Focus Areas


Nitrogen Yields from Agricultural Sources


Percent Cropland


Water Quality Priority Zone

Provide Data and Tools to Support SDM

2.) Within Water Quality Priority Zone identify overlapping interests for improving water quality

NRCS Miss. River Basin Initiative State Nutrient Management Plans Fish Habitat Partnerships Human Dimensions Study EPA Etc.

Used to Identify Areas of Conservation Opportunity Areas with significant overlap of

interest

Identification of Water Quality Focus Areas


Aligned Interests


Water Quality Implementation Focus Areas

Mississippi River Basin/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative ‐ Map Service Data Inventory

Dataset Filename Geodatabase Source Source URL Currentness Map Service Name Notes

County Boundaries MRB_Counties MRB_BaseData_1.gdb ESRI n/a 2012 Basemap

Joint Ventures MRB_JointVentures MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USFWS http://www.fws.gov/gis/data/national/ 2014 Basemap

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives MRB_LandscapeConservationCoops MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USFWS http://www.fws.gov/gis/data/national/ 2014 Basemap

Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi_Alluvial_Plain MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USGS

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/

map_eco.htm 2004 Basemap Based on EPA Level III ecoregions

Mississippi River Basin Miss_RiverBasin MRB_BaseData_1.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2012 Basemap Derived from WBD.

Rivers MRB_EnhancedReachFile1_v2 MRB_BaseData_1.gdb EPA

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/

XML/erf1_2.xml 2002 Basemap

Watershed Boundaries (HU10) MRB_HU10 MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USDA‐NRCS ftp://ftp.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/wbd/ 2012 Basemap






Agricultural water use (million gallons/day) EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: AWD_mgal) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas

http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/Datado

wnload/index.html 2013 Basemap

Domestic water use (million gallons/day) EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: DWD_mgal) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent agriculture on hydric soil

EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: Percent

agriculture on hydric soil (PAGHYD80)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent agriculture on wet areas EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: WET_AG) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent cropland

EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: Percent cropland

(PAGC) ) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent forest and woody wetlands in 30m

buffer

EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: Percent forest

and woody wetlands in buffer (RFOR9030)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent potentially restorable wetlands EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: PctPRW) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Percent wetlands

EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: Percent wetlands

(PWETL)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Stream length impaired by nutrients (km) EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: NutImpLen) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Total number of aquatic species

EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: Total number of

aquatic species (AQ_TOT)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas


wnload/index.html 2013 Basemap G1/G2/ESA species only

Total number of terrestrial species


terrestrial species (TR_TOT)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Total number of wetland species


wetland species (WT_TOT)) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Value of grain crops (dollars) EnviroAtlas_HU12_MRB (Field: GRAIN_DOLS) MRB_BaseData_1.gdb USEPA EnviroAtlas



Alabama ‐ Priority Conservation Areas (Aquatic) Alabama_PCA_Aquatic ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2008 Conservation Designations

Alabama ‐ Priority Conservation Areas

(Terrestrial) Alabama_PCA_Terrestrial ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2008 Conservation Designations

Arkansas/Miss. Alluvial Valley CDN ‐ Restoration

Focus Areas ARMAVCDN_FocusAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb

Lower Miss. Valley

JV via DataBasin

http://databasin.org/datasets/29d51db736004

45d86af18c04b3d5fe8 2012 Conservation Designations

Arkansas Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Conservation Delivery Network (AR MAV

CDN)

Arkansas/Miss. Alluvial Valley CDN ‐ Restoration

Priorities ARMAVCDN_Priorities ConservationDesignations.gdb

Lower Miss. Valley

JV via DataBasin

http://databasin.org/datasets/da728cdb31424

e4d817dbfddd6486844 2012 Conservation Designations

Arkansas Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Conservation Delivery Network (AR MAV

CDN)

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative ‐ Biologist

Ranking Index MRB_NBCI_BRI ConservationDesignations.gdb

National Bobwhite

Con. Initiative via

DataBasin

http://databasin.org/datasets/1cca9dcdc0c548

6d9708826a31110582 2011 Conservation Designations

Ducks Unlimited ‐ Land Acquisition/Easement

Focus Areas DU_LandAcq_Easement_FocusAreas_MRB ConservationDesignations.gdb Ducks Unlimited n/a 2014 Conservation Designations

Approved focus areas for conservation

easements and land acquisitions.

Ducks Unlimited ‐ Landscape Conservation

Priority Areas DU_LandscapeConservation_Priorities_MRB ConservationDesignations.gdb Ducks Unlimited n/a 2014 Conservation Designations

Areas in which DU wants to do the bulk of

their conservation work ‐ restorations,

enhancements, and protection

(acquisitions/easements).

Grassland Bird Conservation Areas GrasslandBirdConAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2010 Conservation Designations

To be superseded by HAPET breeding bird

models.

Grassland Priority Conservation Areas (CEC) Grassland_PCA_CEC_MRB ConservationDesignations.gdb

Commission for

Environmental

Cooperation

http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&Co

ntentID=5609 2010 Conservation Designations

Illinois ‐ Conservation Opportunity Areas Illinois_COA ConservationDesignations.gdb Illinois DNR n/a 2010 Conservation Designations

9/11/2014 1



Illinois ‐ Grassland Focus Areas (INAI Sites) Illinois_GrasslandFocusAreas_INAI ConservationDesignations.gdb

Illinois Natural

History Survey n/a 2013 Conservation Designations

Important Bird Areas Audubon_IBA ConservationDesignations.gdb

National Audubon

Society n/a 2013 Conservation Designations

BOUNDARIES CANNOT BE SHOWN

PUBLICLY.

Iowa ‐ 2000 Acre Complexes Iowa_2000_Acre_Complexes ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Bird Conservation Areas Iowa_Bird_Conservation_Areas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2010 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Coldwater Streams Iowa_Coldwater_Streams ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Ducks Unlimited Living Lakes Iowa_DU_Living_Lakes ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Important Bird Areas Iowa_Important_Bird_Areas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Prairie Pothole JV Priority Areas Iowa_PPJV_Priority_Areas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Public Prairies Iowa_public_prairies ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Shallow Lake Watersheds Iowa_Shallow_Lake_Watersheds ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Iowa ‐ Wildlife Protection Priorities Iowa_Wildlife_Protection_Priorities ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Conservation Designations

Kentucky ‐ Tier1 Conservation Areas KY_Tier1_ConservationAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb

KY Geography

Network

http://kygisserver.ky.gov/geoportal/catalog/m

ain/home.page 2005 Conservation Designations

Minnesota ‐ Aquatic Management Area

Acquisitions MN_aquatic_mang_areas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR

http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata.html?id=

L390002880201 2004 Conservation Designations

Minnesota ‐ Areas of Biodiversity Significance Minn_AreasofBiodiversitySignificance ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and

Resting Areas Minnesota_MigWaterfowl_FeedingRestingAreas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Regionally Significant Ecological

Areas Minn_RegionallySigEcologicalAreas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Scientific and Natural Areas Minnesota_Scientific_and_NaturalAreas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Shallow Lakes MN_shallow_lakes ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Trout Lakes MN_trout_lakes ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota ‐ Wildlife Lakes MN_wildlife_lakes ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota Central Region ‐ Green Infrastructure Minn_CentralRegion_GreenInfrastructure ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota Central Region ‐ Regionally Ecological

Significant Areas Minn_CentralRegion_EcolSigAreas ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota Prairie Plan ‐ Core Minnesota_Prairie_Plan_Core ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota Prairie Plan ‐ Corridor Minnesota_Prairie_Plan_Corridor ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Minnesota Prairie Plan ‐ Corridor Complex Minnesota_Prairie_Plan_CorridorComplex ConservationDesignations_IA_MN.gdb MN DNR



Missouri ‐ Conservation Opportunity Areas Missouri_ConservationOpportunityAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb

MO Dept. of

Conservation n/a 2009 Conservation Designations

Missouri ‐ Grassland Focus Areas Missouri_Grassland_FA ConservationDesignations.gdb

MO Dept. of


Missouri ‐ Prairie Chicken Focus Areas Missouri_Prairie_Chicken_FA ConservationDesignations.gdb

MO Dept. of


Missouri ‐ Quail Focus Areas Missouri_Quail_FA ConservationDesignations.gdb

MO Dept. of


National Conservation Easement Database

(2013) NCED_2013_MRB ConservationDesignations.gdb NCED

http://nced.conservationregistry.org/easemen

ts/download_links 2013 Conservation Designations Version: September 2013

National Wildlife Refuge MRB_NationalWildlifeReguges ConservationDesignations.gdb USFWS

http://www.fws.gov/GIS/data/CadastralDB/in

dex.htm 2014 Conservation Designations

Nebraska ‐ Biologically Unique Landscapes Nebraska_BiologicallyUniqueLandscapes ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2011 Conservation Designations

Nebraska ‐ Migratory Bird Landscape Nebraska_MigratoryBirdLandscape ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2011 Conservation Designations

North Dakota Conservation Focus Areas NorthDakota_ConservationFocusAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2008 Conservation Designations

9/11/2014 2



Ohio ‐ AMJV Bird Habitat Conservation Areas Ohio_AMJV_BHCA ConservationDesignations.gdb

Appalachian

Mountains Joint

Venture (AMJV) n/a 2008 Conservation Designations

Ohio ‐ Conservation Focus Areas Ohio_ConservationFocusAreas ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2006 Conservation Designations

Ohio ‐ Priority Forest Landscapes Ohio_PriorityForestLandscapes ConservationDesignations.gdb

Ohio Div. of

Forestry n/a 2010 Conservation Designations

Open Pine Management DST openpinemanag ConservationDesignations.gdb

East Gulf Coastal

Plain JV via

DataBasin

http://databasin.org/datasets/7e46a62c54a04

13ca8f3e55caad9d317 2012 Conservation Designations

Protected Areas Database (USGS v.1.3) PADUS_USGS_v1_3_MRB ConservationDesignations.gdb USGS

http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/data/downl

oad/ 2012 Conservation Designations

Extracted from "PADUS v1_3 Combined".

Contains most, but not all NCED records.

Tennessee ‐ Conservation Priority Areas

(Aquatic) Tennessee_CPA_Aquatic ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2007 Conservation Designations

Tennessee ‐ Conservation Priority Areas

(Terrestrial) Tennessee_CPA_Terrestrial ConservationDesignations.gdb EISPC http://eispctools.anl.gov/ 2007 Conservation Designations

UMRGLR JV ‐ Openland Breeding Bird Habitat

Priorities UMRGLRJV_OpenlandHabitatPriorities ConservationDesignations.gdb

Upper Mississippi

River and Great

Lakes Region Joint

Venture (UMRGLR

JV) http://www.uppermissgreatlakesjv.org/ 2010 Conservation Designations

UMRGLR JV ‐ Wetland Breeding Bird Habitat

Priorities UMRGLRJV_WetlandHabitatPriorities ConservationDesignations.gdb

Upper Mississippi

River and Great

Lakes Region Joint

Venture (UMRGLR


UMRGLR JV ‐ Woodland Breeding Bird Habitat

Priorities UMRGLRJV_WoodlandHabitatPriorities ConservationDesignations.gdb

Upper Mississippi

River and Great

Lakes Region Joint

Venture (UMRGLR


Wisconsin ‐ Conservation Opportunity Areas

(Terrestrial and Aquatic) Wisconsin_COA_Terrestrial_Aquatic ConservationDesignations.gdb Wisconsin DNR n/a 2008 Conservation Designations

State boundary MRB_State_Boundaries_generalized ConservationDesignations.gdb ESRI n/a 2012 Conservation Designations

Existing Bottomland Forest (UMRFP) umrfp_bf_existing ConservationDesignations.gdb

USFS Upper

Mississippi River

Forest Partnership

(UMRFP)

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/watershed/upper_mi

ssissippi_partnership/gis/analysis.shtm 2009 Conservation Designations

Priority Areas for Bottomland Forest Restoration

(UMRFP) umrfp_bf_priority ConservationDesignations.gdb

USFS Upper

Mississippi River

Forest Partnership

(UMRFP)



Priority Forests for Conservation (UMRFP) umrfp_for_priority ConservationDesignations.gdb

USFS Upper

Mississippi River

Forest Partnership

(UMRFP)



Central Indiana Green Infrastructure Network Central_Indiana_GI GI_Networks.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2009 Green Infrastructure

Chicago Wilderness Ecological Network ChicagoWild_GI GI_Networks.gdb

The Conservation


GI Characterization (NiSource 2010) gi_ranks NiSourceMSHCP_GI_Network.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2010 Green Infrastructure Value = Number of GI network elements/cell

Midwest Wind Green Infrastrucuture Network

Forest Cores/Corridors; Wetland

Cores/Corridors; Aquatic Cores/Corridors; Grass

Cores/Corridors; Hubs; Sites MidwestWind_MSHCP_GI_Network.gdb

The Conservation


NiSource Green Infrastructure Network

Forest Cores/Corridors; Wetland

Cores/Corridors; Aquatic Cores/Corridors; Hubs NiSourceMSHCP_GI_Network.gdb

The Conservation


CDL 2013 ‐ Agricultural Lands CDL_Agriculture MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USDA‐NASS

http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland

/Release/index.htm 2013 Habitats

GAP ‐ Grasslands GAP_Grassland MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USGS

http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/dat

a/download/ 2001 Habitats

This layer should best be considered

"potential" grassland as many of these areas

are classified as agricultural (typically

pasture or hay) in the Cropland Data Layer.

Version 2.2.1.

9/11/2014 3



GAP ‐ Riparian ‐ Floodplain ‐ Bottomland Forests GAP_Riparian_Bottomland_Forest MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USGS

http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/dat

a/download/ 2001 Habitats Version 2.2.1.

Landfire ‐ Biophysical Setting landfire_bps_mrb MRB_Landfire_v120.gdb USGS http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/lf_mosaics.php 2010 Habitats

The Biophysical Settings layer represents the

vegetation that may have been dominant on

the landscape prior to Euro‐American

settlement and is based on both the current

biophysical environment and an

approximation of the historical disturbance

regime. Version 1.2.0.

Landfire ‐ Environmental Site Potential landfire_esp_mrb MRB_Landfire_v120.gdb USGS http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/lf_mosaics.php 2010 Habitats

The Environmental Site Potential (ESP) layer

represents the vegetation that could be

supported at a given site based on the

biophysical environment. ESP map units

represent the natural plant communities that

would become established at late or climax

stages of successional development in the

absence of disturbance. Version 1.2.0.

Illinois ‐ Presettlement Vegetation Illinois_PresettlementVegetation HistoricVegetation_Data.gdb Illinois DNR n/a 2007 Habitats

Iowa ‐ Predicted Savanna Iowa_predicted_savanna MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2007 Habitats

Major Rivers MRB_ERF1_v2_MajorRivers MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USGS

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/

XML/erf1_2.xml 2002 Habitats

Minnesota ‐ Presettlement Vegetation Minnesota_PresettlementVegetation HistoricVegetation_Data.gdb Minnesota DNR


L250000140201 1994 Habitats

Missouri ‐ Historic Prairie Missouri_HistoricPrairie HistoricVegetation_Data.gdb

Jim Harlan, U. of

Missouri n/a 2008 Habitats

NWI Emergent Wetlands (WQPZ) Wetland_Emergent_WQPZ MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USFWS

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/State‐

Downloads.html 2014 Habitats

NWI Forested Wetlands (WQPZ) Wetland_Forested_WQPZ MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USFWS



NWI Riverine Wetlands (WQPZ) Wetland_Riverine_WQPZ MRB_Habitat_Data.gdb USFWS



Ohio ‐ Original Vegetation Ohio_OriginalVegetation HistoricVegetation_Data.gdb Ohio DNR n/a 2003 Habitats

Wisconsin ‐ Original Vegetation Wisconsin_OriginalVegetation HistoricVegetation_Data.gdb Wisconsin DNR

ftp://dnrftp01.wi.gov/geodata/orig_veg_cover

/ 2006 Habitats

Acadian Flycatcher ‐ GAP Distribution Model emp_vir_acflx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP

http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/species/data/dow

nload/ 2014 Species

American Redstart ‐ GAP Distribution Model set_rut_amrex GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Blue‐winged Teal ‐ GAP Distribution Model ana_dis_bwtex GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Bobolink ‐ GAP Distribution Model dol_ory_bobox GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Cerulean Warbler ‐ GAP Distribution Model den_cer_cerwx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Greater Prairie Chicken (pinnatus) ‐ GAP

Distribution Model tym_cup_grpcp GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Henslow's Sparrow ‐ GAP Distribution Model amm_hen_hespx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Lesser Prairie‐chicken ‐ GAP Distribution Model tym_pal_lepcx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Mallard ‐ GAP Distribution Model ana_pla_mallx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Prothonotary Warbler ‐ GAP Distribution Model pro_cit_prowx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Red‐eyed Vireo ‐ GAP Distribution Model vir_oli_revix GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Red‐headed Woodpecker ‐ GAP Distribution

Model mel_ery_rhwox GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Ring‐necked Pheasant ‐ GAP Distribution Model pha_col_rnepx GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

Wood Duck ‐ GAP Distribution Model aix_spo_wodux GAP_Species_Models_MRB_June2014.gdb USGS GAP


nload/ 2014 Species

HAPET ‐ Breeding Duck Pairs (PPJV) ppr_duckpr Misc_Species_data.gdb USFWS (Dan Hertel) n/a 2008 Species

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Clay‐colored sparrow CCSP_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Dickcissel DICK_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

9/11/2014 4



HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Grasshopper Sparrow grsp_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Horned Lark hola_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ LeConte's sparrow lcsp_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Savannah sparrow savs_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs ‐ Sedge wren SEWR_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

HAPET Breeding Pairs‐ Bobolink BOBO_tg2011 HAPET_GbirdModels.gdb USFWS‐HAPET n/a 2011 Species Values are breeding pairs per grid cell

Iowa ‐ Prairie Chicken Predicted Habitat Iowa_prairie_chicken_predicted_habitat Misc_Species_data.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2010 Species Model created by USFWS.

Iowa ‐ Topeka Shiner Designated Habitat Iowa_Topeka_Shiner_Designated_Habitat Misc_Species_Data.gdb Iowa DNR n/a 2006 Species

USFWS Critical Habitat ‐ Appalachian elktoe USFWS_CriticalHabitat_Appalachian_elktoe Misc_Species_data.gdb USFWS http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ 2014 Species

USFWS Critical Habitat ‐ Mussel Reaches MRB_CritHab_line_mussels Misc_Species_data.gdb USFWS http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ 2014 Species

USFWS CriticalHabitat ‐ All Species (Line) USFWS_MRB_CriticalHabitat_line Misc_Species_data.gdb USFWS http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ 2014 Species

USFWS CriticalHabitat ‐ All Species (Poly) USFWS_MRB_CriticalHabitat_poly Misc_Species_data.gdb USFWS http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ 2014 Species

Gopher Tortoise Focal Area GopherTortoise_FocalArea NRCS_WLFW_FocalAreas.gdb NRCS n/a 2012 Species

Lesser Prairie Chicken Focal Area LesserPrairieChicken_FocalArea NRCS_WLFW_FocalAreas.gdb NRCS n/a 2012 Species

Sage Grouse Focal Area SageGrouse_FocalArea NRCS_WLFW_FocalAreas.gdb NRCS n/a 2012 Species

Golden Winged Warbler Focal Area GoldenWingedWarbler_FocalArea NRCS_WLFW_FocalAreas.gdb NRCS n/a 2012 Species

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focal Area SouthwesternWillowFlycatcher_FocalArea NRCS_WLFW_FocalAreas.gdb NRCS n/a 2012 Species

Accumulated Agricultural Nitrogen Yield

(SPARROW MARB 2002) MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: ag_nyld) WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb USGS

http://wim.usgs.gov/sparrowMARB/sparrowM

ARBmapper.html# 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas Units: kg/km2/year

Agricultural Pollution Potential (Rel. to

Landscape Buffering Potential) IBWA_Lower_MRB_HU8 Supplementary_Watershed_Data.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2013 Water Quality Focus Areas

Inverse Buffer Width ‐ Pollution Potential

from Agricultural Sources Relative to

Landscape Buffering Potential

Delivered Agricultural Nitrogen Yield (SPARROW

MARB 2002) MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: ag_dnyd) WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb USGS

http://wim.usgs.gov/sparrowMARB/sparrowM

ARBmapper.html# 2002 Water Quality Focus Areas Units: kg/km2/year

Eastern North and South Dakota Priority

Watersheds (PPP LCC) Dakotas_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

Plains and Prairie

Potholes LCC (PPP

LCC) n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: Dakotas)

EPA Regions 4 & 6 Priority Watersheds EPA_R4_6_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

USEPA/USFWS

Region 4 n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: EPA)

HUC‐6 Basin WQPZ_HUC6 WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation


HUC‐6 watersheds intersecting draft water

quality priority zone.

Kansas Watershed Restoration Action Plan

Priority Watersheds Other_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb Kansas DHE http://www.kswraps.org/ 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas

MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: Other). "Flag" =

333. Not displayed as separate layer in map

service.

Midwest Fish Habitat Partnership Priority

Watersheds FHP_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

Midwest Fish

Habitat

Partnerships n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas

MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: FHP). Did not

receive priorities from all FHP's.

NRCS Miss. River Basin Initiative Priority

Watersheds MRBI_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb USDA‐NRCS

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/de

tailfull/national/home/?cid=STELPRDB1048200 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: MRBI)

National Water Quality Intitiative Priority

Watersheds NWQI_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb NRCS

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/de

tail/national/programs/financial/eqip/?cid=ste

lprdb1047761 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: NWQI)

Cedar River Priority Watershed Other_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

Cedar River

Watershed

Coalition http://iowacedarbasin.org/cedar/?page_id=12 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas

MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: Other). "Flag"=

77. Not displayed as separate layer in map

service.

Percent Cropland (CDL 2013) MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: pct_crop) WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb USDA‐NASS

http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland

/Release/index.htm 2013 Water Quality Focus Areas

Percent Tile Drainage by County MRB_Counties_TileDrainage WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb WRI/USGS NPWRC

WRI:

http://www.wri.org/publication/assessing‐us‐

farm‐drainage; USGS NPWRC:

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/52

fb9ea6e4b00c6b800b98ff

2007, 2008,

2012, 2013 Water Quality Focus Areas

Priority HUC‐12 Watersheds ‐ State Nutrient

Reduction Strategies (GHTF) SNMP_HU12_Priority_Watersheds Supplementary_Watershed_Data.gdb

Gulf Hypoxia Task

Force/TetraTech n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas

Reaches Listed for Nutrient Impairment (2010) MRB_Nutrient_303d_Reaches_attr_2010 Supplementary_Watershed_Data.gdb EPA NPDAT

http://gispub2.epa.gov/NPDAT/DataDownload

s.html 2012 Water Quality Focus Areas

Reaches with Nutrient TMDLs (2010) MRB_Nutrient_TMDL_Reaches_attr_2010 Supplementary_Watershed_Data.gdb EPA NPDAT

http://gispub2.epa.gov/NPDAT/DataDownload

s.html 2012 Water Quality Focus Areas

Tile Drainage Permits ‐ North and South Dakota Dakotas_drainage_permit_poly Supplementary_Watershed_Data.gdb USGS NPWRC

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/52

fb9ea6e4b00c6b800b98ff 2012, 2013 Water Quality Focus Areas

USFWS Region 4/SARP Priority Watersheds FWSR4_SARP_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb USFWS Region 4 n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: FWS)

Water Quality Implementation Focus Areas

(Draft) WQ_Implementation_FocusAreas_0730 WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation


Water Quality Priority Zone (Draft) WaterQuality_PriorityZone WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation


9/11/2014 5



Watersheds Intersecting High Tile Drainage

Counties HighTileDrainage_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: Tile)

Watersheds Intersecting Human Dimension

Study Counties HumanDimension_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: FHP)

Watersheds With Highest Ag. Nitrogen Yield Highest_Ag_NitrogenLoad_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation


MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: SPARROW = 1 or

2)

Watersheds With Highest Percentage of

Cropland Highest_CropPct_Watersheds WaterQuality_PriorityZone_Data.gdb

The Conservation

Fund n/a 2014 Water Quality Focus Areas MRB_HU8_Summary (Field: HiCrop = 1)

9/11/2014 6

Mississippi River Basin – Gulf Hypoxia Initiative

Data Acquisition Status – September 2014

The Conservation Fund

Post-Memphis Workshop Map Service Updates • USFS Upper Mississippi River Forest Partnership Forest Priorities • Illinois Pre-Settlement Vegetation • Landfire Biophysical Setting and Environmental Site Potential • NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife species ranges

Pending Datasets/Map Service Updates • SSURGO soils • Important Forest Resource Areas (IA, IL, IN, MN, MO, WI) • UMRGL Joint Venture focus areas and species distributions • USGS EROS orthophotography service

Datasets to Acquire • TNC Priority Watersheds (Upper Miss., etc.) • Conservation Focus Areas (fill gaps) • Ag. Conservation Practice Target Areas (e.g. SAFE, CREP) • Locations of agricultural conservation practices • High-resolution NHD (within focal areas) • High-resolution DEM (within focal areas) • FEMA floodplains (within focal areas) • High-resolution Land Cover (e.g. Iowa) • Species Distributions (fill gaps) • Additional EnviroAtlas layers (if needed) • Human Dimensions data • USGS EROS FORE-SCE Future/Historic Land Cover • Bird Migration Routes • Fish Habitat Partnership Priority Areas (fill gaps) • SPARROW Delivery Factors

Datasets to Develop (Potential/If Needed) • Implementation Focus Areas • Highly productive/marginal soils • Land ownership patterns (within focal areas)

o Large landowners o Absentee landowners

1

o Farm size? • River system classification (e.g. small, medium, large) • Bottomland hardwoods (refine) • MRB geographic segmentation

o Ag. Production Systems o Cover crop suitability, haying frequency, etc.

MRB State Gaps in Existing TCF GI Networks • Basin Core: AR, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND • Basin Margins (East): AL, GA, NC • Basin Margins (West): TX, NM, CO, WY, MT

2

The Conservation Fund Web Mapping Application

The Conservation Fund Map interface has been designed to provide you with a simple and intuitive web mapping experience that is modeled after popular consumer based web mapping applications. This includes a button-less interface, seamless panning, scroll-wheel zooming and intuitive search and mark-up tools. The web mapping application is designed to work with all modern web browsers but is optimized for Internet Explorer 7+ and Firefox 3.5+. This help file provides detailed information on all of the core functionality available in the application.

1. Basics

1.1 Log in

The application is password protected. You can go directly to the web mapping application

through www.conservationgis.com or you can access it through a project site link. You will be prompt for credentials.

Once you have logged into the application you will see a default map.

1.2 Map Manager

The "Manage" menu provides the user with access to more advanced map management capabilities within the web mapping application using the Map Manager. When a user clicks on the map manager link, the two choices will allow management of Map Services or Markup.

Managing Map Services: The map server manager allows the user to explore other

maps available on one or more map servers. Each map is listed under a service and, by clicking on a listed map, the user can preview the table of contents and the map itself. By double-clicking on the map, the user can load the map into the web mapping application.

Managing Map Markup: The mark up manager allows the user to view all of the saved markup collections on the server. By clicking on a collection, the user can preview the contents and can display a link that can be used to share the markup with other users. By double-clicking on the collection, you can load it into the map session. By right-clicking on the mark-up the user has the option to delete the collection.

1.3 Finding the aerial background layers - Background Map Data

The web mapping interface allows you to easily access commonly used background data. By default, the "ESRI Gray Canvas" background data layer is displayed.

Click on the ESRI Gray Canvas box near the top right of the map to see a list of all available Background data layers which includes multiple years of aerial photography and three colors of "None" or blank background. When you choose a background dataset, it will always be available and the map layers you turn off or on in the map layer list will be displayed on top of the background. You can also toggle between two background datasets using the swipe tool (which is described in the "Map Tools" section), which can be useful to detect changes between two aerial photo flights.

1.4 Searching by address and parcel – The Search box at the top right now defaults

to an address search. You now get an auto-suggest list for owner name and parcel number.

1.5 The Web Mapping Application page has four main parts:

Map: View the current map extent and interactive display for exploring the map.

Console: Allows the user to turn off and on layers in the map and access results from searches and queries.

◦ Map Layers

◦ Results

Toolbar: Provides access to the advanced tools available in the application.

Status Bar: Displays the scale on the map and a real-time display of map coordinates.

1.6 Map Layers

The web mapping application has a number of map layers available with it. These map layers have names, legends and may be grouped together. To expand a grouped layer, click on the plus sign to the left of any layer that is displayed in bold. You can turn the map layer on and off by clicking on the checkbox beside the map layer. Due to the size or content of the data, some data layers may not be available at all scales. If a map layer is grayed out then the layer is not available for display at the current zoom level. To make these layers become available, zoom in on the map until they are no longer grayed out.

1.7 The order and transparency of each set of map layers can also be adjusted by

clicking on Toggle Layer Options at the top of the layer list which will display a transparency slider. By default, all of the map layers are set to a transparency of 0%. Click on the up or down arrow will move the map layer set up or down in the Table of Contents. Clicking on the X button will remove the map layer set from the table of contents.ws

2. Working with Tools

All tools are available at the top of the toolbar under Tools. When you open a tool, options are available for using the tool. You can continue to navigate on the map – zoom, pan, and change the extent of the map – while using any of the tools. This means that you can

measure, markup, print, and user other tools and still change your current extent on the map. You can also right-click on the map at any time to bring up the option to Export the current view or to insert a pushpin marker on the map. Choosing the "Export Current View" option will open the Print / Export menu. Choosing the "Add Pushpin Marker Here" option will insert a pushpin on the map and will send the pushpin to the Markup tool.

2.1 Quick Identify

You can quickly find out about features on the map simply by single-clicking on the

feature. This will display the bubble-window for the feature which contains basic information as well as links to the dimensions of the geometry of the selected feature and the "What's Nearby" tool which is described in the next section. Clicking on the briefcase symbol to the right of the What's Nearby link will save the save the geometry of the selected feature to a markup collection.

2.2 What's Nearby

The What's Nearby tool is available from the Quick Identify bubble window, and it allows users to perform geographic proximity searches for features within a specified distance of the selected feature. By default What's Nearby will search all layers that are available to the tool.

To search specific layers in the map, click on the box where it says "All Visible" and a list of available layers will appear. Simply click the layer to which you want the search restricted.

As noted in the tool, leaving the "Within:" box empty or entering a value of "0" will return all features that are adjacent to the selected property to the results tab. If a value greater than "0" is entered in the box, a buffer polygon will be created around the selected feature. All search features that touch this buffer area will be returned in the results tab. The buffer will be drawn on the screen and can be saved to Markup by clicking the "Save Buffer" button.

For details on how to work with the records returned to the Results tab, see the "Using Results" section of this help document.

2.3 Identify

The Identify tool can be used to view attributes about map features by clicking on the map or clicking Point, Custom Shape, or Buffer buttons in the Identify tool window and clicking or drawing a sketch on the map. When using the Polygon tool, each click on the map will place a vertex (corner) and allow users to define the shape of the area. The buffer tool allows you to enter a predefined buffer distance when querying the map. The point tool sets a pixel

tolerance on the buffer so that you can adjust the accuracy of your mouse clicks on the map. As with the "What's Nearby" tool, the search can be run on all visible features, or it can be restricted to specific features by choosing a layer from the drop-down list. The following functionality is available in the Identify tool:

Users can pan and zoom on the map while they are using the identify tool.

The results of the identify query are displayed in the Results tab of the Console panel. They are organized by layer with a listing of the number of results returned. Click the layer name to expand the listing of individual features identified and to see a summary of information stored in the database about each feature. Hovering the cursor over the feature in the results list will cause the feature to be highlighted on the map.

The polygon sketch may be modified by adding, moving, and deleting vertices. Click on and drag a shaded vertex box to move it. Click a hollow vertex box to create and place a new vertex. To delete a vertex, place the

pointer over a shaded vertex box and press the delete key. To delete the current polygon sketch, users can start creating a new sketch,

close the Identify tool window, or switch to a different tool.

2.4 Using Results

Once features have been identified on the map, you can investigate the results using the results tab on the Console. The layer name and number of returned records will be provided. To open the returned records, click on the layer name in the Results tab. To view detailed attributes for a record, click on "more info…".

To view additional results, click on the arrows at the bottom of the results to show more results or to return more results per page.

To highlight individual records, click on the checkbox beside the feature. To zoom to records, click on the zoom button, displayed as a magnifying

glass. To export records, click on the Tools button and choose the "Export to Excel"

option. To export records for use in Google Earth, click on the Tools button and

choose the "Export to KML" option. To highlight all records on the map, click on the Tools button and choose the

"Check All" option. To remove the highlights from all records on the map, click on the Tools

button and choose the "Un-Check All" option. To sort records by a field, choose a field from the Sort By drop-down list.

2.5 Quick Search

The quick search tool allows the user to toggle between one or more map layer searches and quickly find features within a layer. Choose the search option from the drop-down list for the layer you want to search, type in the value you are looking for and click the Search button. A list of matching records will become available in the results tab.

2.8 Attribute Search

The Attribute Search tool can be used to perform searches on any available attribute in any available layer in the drop-down list. The basic search mode allows the user to perform a search on one attribute only. For fields that contain numeric values, searches can be run based on whether or not the attribute is equal to, greater than, or less than the entered value.

For fields that contain text values, searches can be run based on whether or not the attribute starts with, ends with, equals, or contains the entered value.

The advanced search mode allows the user to perform searches based on multiple attributes.

For both the Basic and Advanced searches, all matches will be returned to the results

tab.

2.9 Measure

The Measure tool can be used to measure user defined distances and areas in the map panel. The following functionality is available in the Measure tool. To measure linear distances, click on the "Distance" button and click on the map to start sketching a line. To measure an area, click on the "Area" button in the Measure tool window and start sketching a polygon.

Each click on the map will place a vertex and allow the user to change the line's direction. Upon placement of the second vertex and with each subsequent vertex placed, the measurement value will be updated in the lower portion of the Measure

tool window. While creating the sketch, pressing the Delete key will delete the last vertex placed. Double click to finish the sketch. The final sketch measurement totals will appear in

the lower portion of the Measure tool window. The sketch may be modified by adding, moving, and deleting vertices. Click on and

drag a shaded vertex box to move it. Click a hollow vertex box to create and place a

new vertex. To delete a vertex, place the pointer over a shaded vertex box and press the delete key.

Length, Perimeter, and Area units can be changed dynamically by changing the units in the drop-down lists beside the measurement values.

To delete the current sketch, either start creating a new sketch, close the Measure tool window, or switch to a different tool.

Users can pan and zoom on the map while they are using the measure tools. You can save a measurement as mark-up by right-clicking your current mark-up

collection and choosing "Capture Current Map Tool". See the "Markup" section of this help document for more details on this functionality.

2.10 Markup

The Markup tool is used to create geographically referenced and/or feature-linked graphics and text which can be displayed on the map at varying scales. Markup items are a permanent part of the current map session and will be visible when you print or export a

map. To use the tool, select from one of the choices on the Markup toolbar and then draw the Markup on the map. There are eight different types of Markup available on the toolbar as shown below:

After selecting a Markup tool, specific instructions for how to use the tool can be viewed by clicking on the "? Toggle Help" button. After the markup has been created, click on the "Save" button to save it to your Markup Collection.

After clicking "Save" a summary box will be displayed on the map, and a new "Temporary Markup" folder and a new graphic will be created in the Map tab on the console. The user can then click on the "edit" link at the bottom of the bubble window to update properties of the markup, click on Dimensions to see geometric details of the shape, or click on the "What's Nearby" link to run a geographic proximity search.

After clicking the "edit" link, the user can then edit the markup properties (size, color, shape, name), outline / fill color and transparency, and line width as well as modify graphics and text. By default, the application provides a name using the shape type chosen by the end user but you can rename the mark up and click on the Save button to save it in your current map session.

New markup items are automatically placed in the "Temporary Markup" collection available at the top of the map tab on the console. Each markup collection is organized by a folder with the name of the collection. Most items created in the map can be imported into a collection and used in the current map session. You can turn off and on markup items by clicking on the checkbox beside the markup, just as you would a normal map layer. If you right-click on any markup item, you are given a number of options for managing the markup:

You can Zoom To a markup item, open the details for a markup item, rename it and delete it from the collection. The Cut and Copy options allow you to move individual markup items within collections. If you right-click the mark-up collection name, you have a number of options available for managing the collection. This includes creating one or more sub-folders within a markup collection where you can organize markup graphics, renaming the

collection, closing the collection, and capturing the current map tool graphic to the markup collection.

The "Save to Server" option will allow the user to save the markup collection to a location on the server where it can be accessed during another session. These saved collections can be accessed through the Map Manager tool which is described in a later section of this help document.

2.11 Swipe

The Swipe tool allows you to quickly toggle between two background layers. Choose whether you want to swipe horizontally or vertically, the background resource you want to “swipe” from the list on the menu and, using your mouse, drag from left to right or top to

bottom to toggle the background layers.

This tool is useful to determining changes that may be visible on two background datasets. If you press the ctrl key while the Swipe tool is open, the normal navigation tools will be available. This allows you to pan and zoom on the map and quickly switch back to the swipe tool.

2.12 Zoom to XY

The Zoom to XY tool is used to jump to a specific map location based on a known set of map coordinates. Users will click on the Zoom to XY tool and enter the coordinate values as Decimal Degrees, Degrees/Minutes/Seconds, native map units, or UTM coordinates in the appropriate boxes. Clicking the Go To button will re-center the map on that location, place a pushpin on the map, and save the pushpin into the markup collection.

2.13 Google and Microsoft Tools

The “View In” menu gives you the choice to view the currently displayed mapping area in either Google Maps or Microsoft Bing Maps. For Google Maps, you can choose to view in Roads, Aerials, Hybrid, or Earth mode. For Microsoft Bing Maps, you can choose to view in Roads, Aerials, Hybrid,or Bird’s Eye mode. The Google and Microsoft Bing Maps views will be launched in a new browser tab, and you can change to any viewing mode once the new window has opened.

3

4

5 6

7

Aerials Bing - Bird's Eye

Google - Roads Bing - Aerials

2.14 Print

The Print tool generates a printable export of the current map. Click on the Print button on the toolbar and choose the export format. An "Export Area" will be displayed on the map

which indicates the exact area that will be included in the export.

If you choose the PDF export option on the print tool, the resulting PDF map will have a number of standard layout elements available. You will be able to choose one or more map layouts from a list of templates and you have the ability to give the map a title. There are also advanced options available with the print tool that allow you to override the scale of the

map and set a parameter for the quality of the map export:

Image formats (JPEG and PNG) are provided as a simple image, and the size of the graphic can be adjusted by changing the values for Width and Height. As these values are changed in the Map Export window, the "Export Area" box on the map will adjust accordingly.

The image can be viewed in a new tab on the browser by clicking on "View Export", or

the image file can be saved by right-clicking on the "View Export" link and choosing the "Save Target As..." option.

2.15 Bookmarks

The Bookmark tool allows you to quickly zoom to specific locations on the map. Click on the named bookmark that you want to use and the map will zoom to that bookmark extent.

2.16 Help

For more information use the built-in Help located in the Toolbar.

Multi-LCC Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia ... Aug 2014 Worksho… · Mississippi River /...

Documents

Transcript of Multi-LCC Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia ... Aug 2014 Worksho… · Mississippi River /...