lcc mississippi gulf hypoxia initiative (mrb/ghi ... hypoxia... · will change hands –some to...
TRANSCRIPT
Multi‐LCC Mississippi / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (MRB/GHI)Integrating Basin‐Wide Challenges from
Grassland Birds to Gulf Shrimp
LCC Contacts: Glen Salmon & Gwen White, ETPBR staffand dozens of other agencies & organizations in the 7 LCCs of the Mississippi River Basin
Funded by the multi‐LCC Network Project #2013‐17
A crisis is brewing on the prairie …High commodity prices are great for farmers…
Not so great for grassland birds and pollinators.From 2008‐2012, plowed under 7.2 million acres for crops.
These are the highest rates of loss since the Dust Bowl.
Is this another Silent Spring?
…and downstream in the Big Rivers
As farmers retire over the next 20 years, about 400 million acres will change hands – some to international investors.
[all national cropland = 442 million acres]
From: Oakland Institute 2014. Down on the Farm. Wall Street: America’s New Farmer.
Climate Stationarity is Dead.When Illinois is East Texas…
How will Agriculture & Wildlife Adapt?
ʺUpstream is where you grew up, where you came from. Downstream is what you leave behind, your legacy."
-- Carol Armstrong, Los Angeles Mayor's office
Map of degree of human modification (darker areas)
1. Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC Rick Nelson
2. Upper Midwest & Great Lakes LCC John Rogner, Brad Potter
3. Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers LCC ‐ Glen Salmon, Gwen White4. Great Plains LCC – Nicole Athearn, James Broska5. Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC – Greg Wathen, Todd Jones‐Farrand6. Appalachian LCC – Jean Brennan7. Gulf Coast Prairie LCC – Bill Bartush, Cynthia Edwards, Ben Kahler
22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs)
7 span the Mississippi Basin
Who are the typical Steering Committee members in a Midwest LCC (example below from ETPBR)?
Mission Possible:Restore & Connect Wildlife
with People on the Rich Soils of a Functional
Working Landscape
Must be pragmatic, scalable/regional,
collaborative, transparent, and value‐added to ongoing
restoration efforts!
What do we want to accomplish?
How can we target wildlife actions to also benefit water quality and agriculture?
p gThe LCD process guides adaptive management:
• Where are we now? Where are we headed? – assess current and projected landscape
• Where do we want to be headed? – define desired future conditions
• How can we get there most efficiently? – weigh & select strategies to align actions
• Where do we focus actions?– map high priority opportunities on the landscape
• How could drivers change the outcome?– model scenarios and tradeoffs
• What if we’re missing something?– implement, evaluate and refine strategies
Gulf Hypoxia Initiative ‐ Components1) What to Do? Fact Sheets for 14
High Impact Ag Conservation Practices
2) Where? Online Mapping Tool to target conservation investments
3) Why? Estimation of multi‐sector benefits
4) How? Demonstration projects for emerging practices
5) Evaluation? Multi‐sector landscape‐scale monitoring system
6) Research? Future directions
“Focused action is going to be more inspiring than perfect planning.” –Eric Schenck, DU / ETPBR LCC Steering Committee
How can we align & target our actions through a “Collective Impact” approach?
1. Common agenda: Seek out and convene a network of change agents who want to explore solutions to critical large-scale problems.
3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Develop a systematic portfolio of research that can’t be done alone because of scope or scale.
4. Backbone organization: Match new sources that can contribute resources and training on emerging issues and technologies.
5. Communicate: Credit, promote and celebrate the great work being done by partners!
2. Shared measurement: Design accessible systems for targeting, measuring and comparing outcomes.
Who are the multi‐sector stakeholders that are involved? Universities:• Kansas State University• Mississippi State University• Ohio State University• Louisiana University Marine Consortium• University of Illinois • University of Minnesota• University Wisconsin‐MadisonNGOs:• Agricultural Watershed Institute• Mississippi River Network • Ducks Unlimited• Enviroscapes Ecological Consulting• Fishers & Farmers Fish Habitat Partnership• Gulf Hypoxia Task Force• Illinois Council on Best Management Practices• KGregg Consulting • Lower Mississippi River Committee• Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance• Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource
Association • National Wildlife Federation• Natural Land Institute • Oak Ridge National Laboratory• Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership• Practical Farmers of Iowa• The Conservation Fund• The Nature Conservancy• Wildlife Management Institute
State agencies:• Indiana DNR• Iowa Dept of Agriculture• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency• Missouri Dept of Conservation• Nebraska Game & Parks Commission• Tennessee Wildlife Resources AgencyFederal agencies:• Army Corps of Engineers• Dept of Energy• Dept of Transportation• EPA (OWOW, Hypoxia Task Force)• Fish & Wildlife Service (ES, Partners, EA, NCTC)• USDA Forest Service• US Geological Survey (NAWQA, HTF)• National Park Service• NOAA (HTF)• South Central Climate Science Center• USDA Farm Service Agency• USDA National Institute of Food & Agriculture• USDA NRCS (AR, IN, TN, MRBI)
50 people in Memphis.
Over 250 in the contact list and counting…
A YEAR‐LONG FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION CULMINATEDIN A WORKSHOP IN MEMPHIS, TN, AUG 2014
2014 MRB/GHI Decision Making Workshop Report(i.e., “The Memphis Report”) identifies:
• 5 Ecological Systems & 5 Farm Production Systems
• Species that may indicate progress in each system
• Alternative Actions by Farming System
• Prioritized list of Cost‐Effective Strategies
• Initial list of barriers, science needs & programs
WHAT IS THE COMMON GOAL?
We are seeking broad consensus on howand where to best design and implement conservation delivery throughout the Mississippi Basin in a way that benefits wildlife, while simultaneously reducing the nutrient loading to Gulf hypoxia and balancing agricultural interests.
What are the shared multi‐sector objectives?
Decrease Gulf Hypoxia
Increase Wildlife Benefits
Forested
Riparian
Prairie
Bottom
land
Ha
rdwoo
d
Increase Agricultural Productivity
Decrease Regulatory
Uncertainty
Increase Net Returns
Mod
ified
Headw
ater
Decrease Implementation
costs
Species (abundance, life history
or occupancy)
Decrease Risk
Ave $/acre
Ave $/acreSoil health
Inputcosts
Water quantity
Local nutrient load
Watershed nutrient load
Surface water
Ground water
N & P load
Increase or maintain productivity (ecosystem services)
Maxim
ize Resilien
ce
What are the shared performance metrics?
Objective –Increase Wildlife Benefits
Forested RiparianMid‐sized Streams
Prairie(Grazing)
Mainstem Floodplains
American woodcockAmerican redstartBelted kingfisherBlue‐gray gnatcatcherRed‐eyed vireoBlack redhorsePugnose minnowRiver redhorseShovelnose sturgeonSmallmouth bassCopper‐bellied watersnakeMusselsCyanobacteriaMacroinvertebrate IBIFish IBI
Acadian flycatcher(forest breeding songbirds)Cerulean warbler Kentucky warblerProthonotary WarblerRed‐headed WoodpeckerSwainson’s warblerSwallow‐tailed kiteTree or Barn SwallowsWood Duck (wintering waterfowl)Wood thrushAlligator garMudpuppyMusselsPalaemonetes shrimp
Blue‐winged tealBobolinkDickcisselGadwallGrasshopper sparrowHenslow’s sparrowHorned larkKilldeerLoggerhead shrike MeadowlarksUpland sandpiperPrairie volePlains pocket gopherMonarch butterflyTopeka shinerFloristic Quality Index
Modified Headwaters
(Row Crop Fields)
American golden ploverBlue‐winged tealLeopard frogCrawfish frogBlackside darterBrown troutCreek chubJohnny darterSculpinTopeka shinerMonarch butterflyPollinators (native bees)Wild riceMacroinvertebrate IBIFish IBI
Which Focal Species indicate outcomes for these multi‐sector conservation practices?
What is the relationship between potential Actionsand leverage points for achieving Objectives?
Example Influence Diagram: Modified Headwaters - Hydrology
Terrestrial Species
Aquatic Species
Gulf Hypoxia
Agricultural Production
Regulatory Uncertainty
Terrestrial Habitat Quantity
Aquatic Habitat Quantity
NutrientsSubsurface Tile
Drainage
Modified Hydrology
Erosion
Flashy Hydrograph
Runoff
Channelization
Head-cutting
Land use
Sediment
Surface inlets
Drainage Management
SurfaceDrainage (ditching wetlands)
Bank erosion
Wetland restoration
Stream restoration
Bed De-stabilization
Acquisition/easement
Two-stage ditches
What is an example of a multi-benefit conservation practice in a row crop production system?
Drainage Water Management - American Golden-Plover
Which Actions are most cost‐effective for achieving Objectives? – evaluated by practitioners.Headwaters & Working Lands Practices
Effectiveness (1‐high; 5‐low) Cost (1‐low; 5‐high) Combined Ranks
Mean Std Dev Rank Mean Std Dev
Rank
Cropland for invertebrates
3.20 1.40 3 1.67 0.71 3 6
Drainage layout for management
2.67 0.98 2 1.83 0.83 4 6
In‐field prairie STRIPS 4.00 8 1.00 1 9Soil health 3.58 1.62 5 1.75 0.75 5 10Constructed wetlands 2.50 1 5.00 10 11Oxbow restoration 5.00 10 1.00 2 12Alternative crops (i.e., biomass)
3.62 0.96 6 1.92 0.76 6 12
Drainage water management
3.38 1.19 4 2.54 0.52 9 13
Buffers 3.92 1.19 7 1.92 0.49 7 14Habitat restoration 4.42 1.16 9 2.50 0.52 8 17Nutrient criteria 5.00 11 5.00 11 22
Strategies to Achieve Multiple Objectives
Riparian ForestMid‐sized Streams
PrairiesGrazing Lands
Floodplain Ag Lower Miss Valley (Cotton & Rice)
Low cost / effectiveBuffers in headwatersSoil healthMedium costBank stabilizationLivestock fencingHigh costRestore connectivityHydrologic restoration
RemeanderingSediment removalInfiltrationDam removal
EasementsAcquisition
Wetlands
Low cost / effectiveVegetation diversityConvert marginal land
Medium costWetland reforestationRegulate diversionsInvasive controlHigh costRe‐open channelsDredge wetlands Acquisition (forest)Water diversionConnectivityMarket drivers
Low cost / effectiveConversion incentiveGrazing BMPsMedium costPrescribed fireGrassed wetland bufferDrought mgtPrairie STRIPSHigh costCompensate servicesRiparian habitatRestore savanna/oaksNative seed mix
Headwaters & Corn & Soybean
Row Crops
What was the initial list of highly effective practices, arrayed by relative cost?
Low cost / effectiveSoil healthCrop land for inverts Drainage lay outOxbow restorationNo tillCrop rotationMedium costBuffersAlt crops (biomass)Cover cropsNative contour STRIPSStream fencing
High costHabitat restorationDrainage water mgtTreatment wetlandsNutrient standards
Floodplain AgMidwest
(Corn & Beans)
Low cost / effectiveVeg restorationMedium costVegetation controlLevee breaksRemove tilesStop log structureCarp gratesReforestationHigh costConnectivityBackwatersControl structures
During 2015, Work Teams Developed Fact Sheets for 13 High Impact Conservation Practices
• What & Where – Which species respond to each
practice with multi‐sector benefits?
– Do we have population objectives and monitoring?
– Will redesign of the practicesmaximize multiple benefits?
• Who & Why– Which programs implement,
research and/or design these practices?
– What are the socioeconomic implications?
• How– How do we deliver this
information to programs?
How do we Scale Down the spatial analysis for Local Delivery?Stakeholders Identify Which Habitats & Practices
Resonate in their Area of InterestGrassed Wetland BuffersPrairie STRIPS in Row Crops
Putting a Plan into Action:Delivery Tools Design & Research Forum
March 1‐3, 2016, Indianapolis
Purpose: Reconvene 40‐80 multi‐sector participants to examine the research outcomes, spatial analysis, monitoring data, and other tools to determine: 1) How can we immediately
influence program targeting?2) What further work is needed to
integrate models & research?
Design & Research Forum Objectives & ProcessInvitation to 282 interested researchers & managers.Anticipating a working group of 40-80 people.
Process: Breakouts & group work to focus on key implementation questions/actions.
Implementation Questions organized within Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) to determine next steps and required resources:
1) Planning -- What are the national-level program and policy barriers to implementing these 13 practices?
2) Design -- How do we format the 13 agricultural practices and spatial analysis as an accessible toolto drive targeted investment in existing programs?
3) Delivery -- Which critical emerging practices require demonstration sites in target watersheds to test design and evaluate cross-sector cost and impacts?
4) Monitoring -- How can we integrate Mississippi basin-level cross-sector monitoring to track change relative to large-scale drivers?
1) Planning ‐‐What are the national‐level program and policy barriers to implementing these practices?
2) Design ‐‐ How do we present the spatial analysis as an accessible tool to drive how, what and where to
align actions in existing programs?
3) Delivery ‐‐Which critical emerging practices require demonstration sites in target watersheds to test design and evaluate cross‐sector cost and impacts?
4) Monitoring ‐‐ How can we integrate Mississippi basin‐level cross‐sector monitoring to examine landscape‐scale impacts on all three sectors and assess resilience to future change?
Research Questions for future exploration:What do we need to know about climate change?
Impacts on wildlife Species vulnerability – range shifts, timing of pollination? River and prairie system hydrology & termperature? How to design landscape corridors for future climate conditions? What to use for performance metrics (end points of success)?Impacts on land use Agricultural production systems (choice of crops & livestock)? Water resource demands & infrastructure? Renewable energy demands & opportunities? Ecosystem services from wildlife conservation (pollination, soils)?
Gulf Hypoxia Initiative ‐ Components1) What to Do? Fact Sheets for 14
High Impact Ag Conservation Practices
2) Where? Online Mapping Tool to target conservation investments
3) Why? Estimation of multi‐sector benefits
4) How? Demonstration projects for emerging practices
5) Evaluation? Multi‐sector landscape‐scale monitoring system
6) Research? Future directions
“Focused action is going to be more inspiring than perfect planning.” –Eric Schenck, DU / ETPBR LCC Steering Committee
Collaborative Power of Multiple LCCs pulling conservation partners together in a
Collective Impact approach
Contact us: Staff of 7 LCCs in the MRBGlen Salmon, Coordinator
Gwen White, PhDwww.tallgrassprairielcc.org
Conservation agencies canpiece together a landscape
that works for wildlife, water quality and people.