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 staff and 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?
ʺ Upstr eam is wher e you gr ew up, wher e you c ame fr om. Downstr eam is what you leave behind, your legac y." -- Car ol Ar mstr ong, L os Ange le s Mayor 's offic e Map of degree of human modification (darker areas)
22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) 7 span the Mississippi Basin 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 White 4. Great Plains LCC – Nicole Athearn, James Broska 5. Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC – Greg Wathen, Todd Jones ‐ Farrand 6. Appalachian LCC – Jean Brennan 7. Gulf Coast Prairie LCC – Bill Bartush, Cynthia Edwards, Ben Kahler
Who are the typical Steering Committee members in a Midwest LCC (example below from ETPBR)?
What do we want to accomplish? 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!
How c an we tar get wildlife ac tions to also benefit water quality and agr ic ultur e?
The LCD process guides adaptive management: p g • 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 ‐ Components 1) 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 c onvene a networ k of c hange agents who want to explor e solutions to c r itic al lar ge-sc ale pr oblems. 5. Communic ate: Cr edit, 2. Shar ed measur ement: pr omote and c elebr ate the Design ac c essible systems gr eat wor k being done by for tar geting, measur ing par tner s! and c ompar ing outc omes. 3. Mutually R einfor c ing Ac tivities: Develop a systematic por tfolio of 4. Bac kbone or ganization: r esear c h that c an’t be done alone Matc h new sour c es that c an c ontr ibute r esour c es bec ause of sc ope or sc ale. and tr aining on emer ging issues and tec hnologies.
Who are the multi ‐ sector stakeholders that are involved? Universities: State agencies: Kansas State University Indiana DNR • • • Mississippi State University • Iowa Dept of Agriculture • Ohio State University • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Louisiana University Marine Consortium • Missouri Dept of Conservation • University of Illinois • Nebraska Game & Parks Commission University of Minnesota Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency • • • University Wisconsin ‐ Madison Federal agencies: NGOs: Army Corps of Engineers • • Agricultural Watershed Institute • Dept of Energy • Mississippi River Network • Dept of Transportation • Ducks Unlimited • EPA (OWOW, Hypoxia Task Force) • Enviroscapes Ecological Consulting • Fish & Wildlife Service (ES, Partners, EA, NCTC) Fishers & Farmers Fish Habitat Partnership USDA Forest Service • • • Gulf Hypoxia Task Force • US Geological Survey (NAWQA, HTF) • Illinois Council on Best Management Practices • National Park Service • KGregg Consulting • NOAA (HTF) • Lower Mississippi River Committee • South Central Climate Science Center Midwest Conservation Biomass Alliance USDA Farm Service Agency • • • Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource • USDA National Institute of Food & Agriculture Association • USDA NRCS (AR, IN, TN, MRBI) National Wildlife Federation • • Natural Land Institute 50 people in Memphis. • Oak Ridge National Laboratory • Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership • Practical Farmers of Iowa Over 250 in the contact list and The Conservation Fund • counting… • The Nature Conservancy • Wildlife Management Institute
A YEAR ‐ L ONG F RAMEWORK D ISCUSSION C ULMINATED IN A W ORKSHOP IN M EMPHIS , TN, A UG 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
W HAT IS THE C OMMON G OAL ? We are seeking broad consensus on how and 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? Increase or maintain productivity (ecosystem services) Increase Decrease Increase Wildlife Decrease Agricultural Implementation Benefits Gulf Hypoxia Productivity costs Decrease Regulatory Increase Net Returns Modified Headwater Maximize Resilience Watershed Forested Riparian Decrease Risk Bottomland nutrient load Uncertainty Hardwood Prairie Local nutrient load Input Soil Water Ground water Ave $/acre Species costs health quantity (abundance, life history Surface water or occupancy) Ave $/acre N & P load What are the shared performance metrics?
Which Focal Species indicate outcomes for these multi ‐ sector conservation practices? Objective – Increase Wildlife Benefits Modified Prairie Mainstem Forested Riparian Headwaters (Grazing) Floodplains Mid ‐ sized Streams (Row Crop Fields) Blue ‐ winged teal American golden plover American woodcock Acadian flycatcher Blue ‐ winged teal Bobolink American redstart (forest breeding songbirds) Leopard frog Dickcissel Belted kingfisher Cerulean warbler Gadwall Crawfish frog Blue ‐ gray gnatcatcher Kentucky warbler Grasshopper sparrow Blackside darter Red ‐ eyed vireo Prothonotary Warbler Henslow’s sparrow Brown trout Black redhorse Red ‐ headed Woodpecker Creek chub Horned lark Pugnose minnow Swainson’s warbler Johnny darter Killdeer River redhorse Swallow ‐ tailed kite Loggerhead shrike Sculpin Shovelnose sturgeon Tree or Barn Swallows Meadowlarks Topeka shiner Smallmouth bass Wood Duck Upland sandpiper Monarch butterfly Copper ‐ bellied watersnake (wintering waterfowl) Pollinators (native bees) Prairie vole Mussels Wood thrush Plains pocket gopher Wild rice Cyanobacteria Alligator gar Monarch butterfly Macroinvertebrate IBI Macroinvertebrate IBI Mudpuppy Topeka shiner Fish IBI Fish IBI Mussels Floristic Quality Index Palaemonetes shrimp
What is the relationship between potential Actions and leverage points for achieving Objectives? Example Influence Diagram: Modified Headwaters - Hydrology Surface Terrestrial Terrestrial Habitat Drainage Drainage Land use Species Quantity Management (ditching wetlands) Two-stage Flashy ditches Surface inlets Aquatic Habitat Aquatic Hydrograph Quantity Species Modified Head-cutting Acquisition/ Hydrology easement Gulf Hypoxia Nutrients Bank erosion Subsurface Tile Drainage Wetland Bed De- restoration Agricultural stabilization Runoff Production Sediment Stream Regulatory restoration Erosion Channelization Uncertainty
What is an example of a multi-benefit conservation practice in a row crop production system? Drainage Water Management - American Golden-Plover
Recommend
More recommend
