Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers Landscape Conservation Cooperative. March 29-30, 2016 Steering Committee Meeting.

Transcription

1 Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers Landscape Conservation Cooperative March 29-30, 2016 Steering Committee Meeting Des Moines, Iowa LCC Partners at Konza Prairie (Joanna Gilkeson) Verbena stricta Woolly Verbena (Joanna Gilkeson) LCC Steering Committee - Chicago Contents: (Tab Number) 1. Meeting Working Agenda 2. Updated Committee Roster 3. ETPBR LCC Project List as of March National Academy of Science Report Overview 5. MRB/GHI Next Steps Documents 6. Monarch Conservation Information 7. FY 2016 Business Plan Overview 8. Website Information DJ Case 9. FY 2016 Budget Decisions (Budget sheet & proposed projects for funding)

2 Tab 1 ETPBR LCC Steering Committee meeting AGENDA Tuesday Wednesday, March 29 30, 2016 Greater Des Moines Botanical Garden, Des Moines, IA NOTE: Agenda is on CENTRAL TIME Remote Call in Connections (Tues 1pmCT Wed noon): Webex (Do not enter anything in the conference/meeting passcode field) Audio Dial participant code # Tuesday OPTIONAL field trip to Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 8:00 Gather in lobby Hampton Inn & Suites Des Moines for transport to Neal Smith NWR 9:00 3 hour tour of Neal Smith NWR with Refuge Manager 12:00 Travel back for SC meeting box lunches available for tour participants on ride back to Des Moines Tuesday Steering Committee meeting at Des Moines Botanical Garden 1:00 Welcome to the Des Moines Botanical Garden Staff 1:10 Co Chair Opening remarks Charlie Wooley/Kelley Myers 1:20 ETPBR LCC Overview (Tabs 1 3) Salmon 1:30 NAS Report Strategy Session (Tab 4) Salmon/Myers ACTION: Do recommendations reflect the ETPBR LCC? How shall we approach Performance Metrics? 2:00 MRB/GHI Update and Next Steps (Tab 5) White/Donnelly/Rose/Schwartz/ ACTION: Are you willing to take this back to your program leads and align your actions around this tool? Commitment to continue to provide staff time for refinement of the tool. Vote on Lower Wabash Floodplains (IL/IN) and Decatur County Comprehensive Plan (IN) as pilot project areas. 3:00 Break All 3:15 Monarch Conservation (Tab 6) Wooley/Myers/Bouman/Shaw Wooley: R3 lead Kelley: States Bouman: Urban Monarch LCD Shaw: St. Louis and Other Monarch Projects 4:15 TAG Year in Review and FY16 Business Plan (Tab 7) Stephenson/Rose/Shaw Agroecology TAG and EPiC Urban TAG Focal Areas 5:00 End of Day one 6:00 Optional Group dinner at the Court Avenue Brewing Company (309 Court Avenue Des Moines, IA See directions on next page!)

3 Working Draft ETPBR LCC Steering Committee Agenda (March 29 30, 2016; Des Moines, IA) Wednesday Reconvene Steering Committee meeting at Des Moines Botanical Garden 8:30 Recap from yesterday s discussions Salmon 9:00 TAG Year in Review and FY16 Business Plan (Tab 7) Ellis/BouFajreldin Prairie and Big Rivers Focal Areas 9:45 Break All 10:00 New Website discussion (Tab 8) Hartman/Marshall 10:30 FY2016 Business plans budget decisions (Tab 7) Salmon/White ACTION: Vote on FY16 Projects 11:30 Wrap up & Next meeting location Myers/Salmon Wed noon Depart Directions to Court Avenue Brewing Company from the Hotel Court Avenue Brewing Company Menu:

4 Working Draft ETPBR LCC Steering Committee Agenda (March 29 30, 2016; Des Moines, IA) Tab 2 ETPBR LCC Steering Committee (official list, March 2016) ETPBR LCC Steering Committee & Staff (updated March 2016) First Last Name Organization E mail Kelley Myers ETPBR Co Chair; LCC Network Council kelley.myers@dnr.iowa.gov MAFWA Representative; Fish Habitat Partnerships; Iowa DNR Charles Wooley ETPBR Co Chair, USFWS, R3 Charles_Wooley@fws.gov Brian Anderson Illinois Natural History Survey bda@illinois.edu Matthew Anderson Bureau of Indian Affairs matthew.anderson@bia.gov Ken Barr US Army Corps of Engineers Kenneth.A.Barr@usace.army.mil Mark Bouman Chicago Wilderness / Field Museum pbotts@wetlands initiative.org David Brakhage Ducks Unlimited dbrakhage@ducks.org Jeff Burris Ohio Division of Wildlife jeff.burris@dnr.state.oh.us Dan Cornelius Intertribal Agricultural Council dan@indianaglink.com Ivan Dozier USDA NRCS Illinois Ivan.Dozier@il.usda.gov Jake George Kansas Department of Parks, Wildlife jake.george@ksoutdoors.com and Tourism Richard Hatcher Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife rhatcher@odwc.state.ok.us Conservation Jerry Hatfield USDA Climate Hub, Midwest jerry.hatfield@ars.usda.gov Greg Hoch Minnesota DNR Greg.Hoch@state.mn.us Chris Holbeck National Park Service chris_holbeck@nps.gov Rich Iovanna USDA Farm Service Agency rich.iovanna@wdc.usda.gov Aaron Kuehl Pheasants Forever akuehl@pheasantsforever.org Ted LaGrange Nebraska Games & Parks Commission; ted.lagrange@nebraska.gov Upper Mississippi River / Great Lakes Joint Venture Michael Langston South Central Climate Science Center mlangston@usgs.gov Alan Lewitus NOAA Alan.Lewitus@noaa.gov Janette Marsh US Environmental Protection Agency Marsh.Janette@epamail.epa.gov Will Meeks USFWS, R6 will_meeks@fws.gov Jeff Morisette North Central Climate Science Center morisettej@usgs.gov Jeremy Peichel US Forest Service jpeichel@fs.fed.us Wayne Peterson Iowa Dept of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Mark Reiter Indiana DNR Division of Fish & mreiter@dnr.in.gov Wildlife Wayne Rosenthal Illinois Dept of Natural Resources dnr.director@illinois.gov Rebeccah Sanders Audubon rsanders@audubon.org John Shuey The Nature Conservancy jshuey@tnc.org Michelle Staudinger Northeast Climate Science Center mstaudinger@usgs.gov Janet Sternburg Missouri Dept of Conservation Janet.Sternburg@mdc.mo.gov Robert Swanson USGS, Midwest rswanson@usgs.gov

5 Working Draft ETPBR LCC Steering Committee Agenda (March 29 30, 2016; Des Moines, IA) Jack Waide USGS UMESC ETPBR STAFF Lama BouFajreldin University of Illinois Bob Clevenstine US FWS National Wildlife Refuges , Ext. 205 Abby Donnelly Indiana University Jamie Ellis University of Illinois Craig Miller University of Illinois Jorgen Rose Indiana University Glen Salmon US FWS x1211 Kristin Shaw US FWS Andrew Stephenson University of Northern Iowa Gwen White US FWS

6 Working Draft ETPBR LCC Steering Committee Agenda (March 29 30, 2016; Des Moines, IA) Tab 3 ETPBR LCC Project List on USGS ScienceBase (as of March 2016) FY Title Contact Budget Prairie Restoration Focal Area 2013 Prairie STRIPS Lisa Schulte Moore, Iowa State University 2014 Building a science and outcome based monitoring Greg Hoch, Minnesota Dept of framework for measuring the effectiveness of prairie Natural Resources restoration and management efforts 2014 Developing a Framework for Evaluating Tallgrass Diane Larson, USGS Northern Prairie Reconstruction Methods and Management Prairie Research Center 2014 Development of a spatially explicit models and decision support tools for Henslow's sparrows and other priority birds in the Flint Hills River Restoration Focal Area Brian Smith, Mike Estey, US FWS $149,000 $35,535 $176,753 $125, Aviation and Remote Sensing Programs Mary Balogh, US FWS $25, Mississippi River remote sensing Tom Worthington, US FWS $62, Refining Mussel Conservation Techniques through the Operation of a Streamside Rearing Trailer 2012 A Hydrogeomorphic approach to evaluate ecosystem restoration and habitat management for the Lower Missouri River 2012 A riverscape genetics approach to minimize genetic risks associated with pallid sturgeon propagation 2012 Creating a detailed vegetation classification and digital vegetation map for Squaw Creek NWR 2012 Development of a community level forecasting model for pallid and shovelnose sturgeon and associated chub species in the lower Missouri River 2012 Relocation of Eastern Box Turtles to reclaimed mineland at the Patoka River NWR 2014 Quantifying Ecosystem Processes in Support of River Restoration and Nutrient Reduction: Effects of Increased River Floodplain Connectivity in the Maquoketa River 2015 Floodplain forest workshop (Sept 15 17, 2015, Dubuque, IA) Agroecology Focal Area 2012 Assessing effects of agricultural best management practices on stream and river aquatic health Doug Aloisi, US FWS Genoa $50,400 National Fish Hatchery Josh Eash, USFWS $367,131 George Jordan, US FWS $142,966 Darrin Welchert, US FWS $29,934 Wyatt Doyle, US FWS $271,674 Kirk Lohman, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center Bill Richardson, US GS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center Jeremy Peichel, US Forest Service $333,580 $369,528 $3,541 USGS $71,000

7 Working Draft ETPBR LCC Steering Committee Agenda (March 29 30, 2016; Des Moines, IA) 2012 Assessing Landowner's/Producer's attitude toward and motivations for participating in conservation programs beneficial to wildlife 2012 Literature search on environmental affects of agricultural practices David Fulton, University of Minnesota $50,000 Kasey J Hutchinson, Iowa $40,000 Water Science Center 2013 Floodplain functions conceptual modeling workshop Ken Lubinski, USGS UMESC $5, GAP analysis and spatial Decision Support System for Jack Waide, USGS UMESC $47,500 grassland and riparian birds 2013 Mississippi River Basin Gulf Hypoxia Structured Gwen White, US FWS $84,000 Decision Making Workshop 2014 Toward a Comparative Understanding of Agriculture Craig Miller, University of $62,357 Producers and Non producers Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and Gulf Hypoxia Illinois 2014 Value added conservation: Optimizing landscapes for Bonnie Keeler, University of $86,040 ecosystem services Minnesota 2015 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Spatial Analysis Conservation Michael Schwartz, The $71,374 Blueprint v1.0 Conservation Fund 2016 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Research & Design Forum, March 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Gwen White, US FWS $1,500 Urban Conservation (EPiC) Focal Area 2013 Midwest Urban Conservation Workshop Kristin Shaw, US FWS $4, Milkweed for Monarchs: Implementing and Catherine Werner, City of St $80,000 Evaluating Site Level Habitat Design Louis 2015 Developing a Continental Blueprint for Targeting Abigail Derby Lewis, Field $290,000 Landscape Level Urban Monarch Conservation Museum 2015 Urban Core Team Strategic Planning Workshop, Aug 31 Sept 1, 2015, Chicago, IL Kristin Shaw, US FWS $940 Multi LCC Training 2013 NCTC Toolbox Workshops Train the Trainer Approach to Provide Services to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Dave Lemarie, NCTC $122,500 GRAND TOTAL (FY ) $3,160,205

8 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW OF THE LCCS NAS REVIEW: FINDINGS The 12-person NAS review committee concluded: THERE IS A NATIONAL NEED FOR A LANDSCAPE APPROACH The nation needs to take a landscape approach to conservation and that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is justified addressing this need with the LCCs. LCCS ARE UNIQUE The committee determined that there is no other federal program like the LCCs that is designed to address landscape conservation needs at a national scale for all natural and cultural resources that bridges research and management. The committee also noted the LCCs ability to create opportunities for identifying common conservation goals and leveraging efforts of diverse partners at a much greater scale than any one entity could achieve alone. Moreover, the committee found that consolidation of the LCCs with other similar types of programs such as Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and Climate Science Centers is not needed given the distinct roles of each of the programs. ABOUT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW In 2014, Congress directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to engage the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the LCCs. After considering significant input from state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders from the conservation community, the Academy released its Review of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives on December 3, The report is available at NAS REVIEW: OBJECTIVES The objective of the NAS review was to evaluate the purpose, goals and scientific merit of the LCC program within the context of other similar programs, and to determine whether there has been measurable improvements in the health of fish, wildlife and their habitats as a result of the program. The Academy was also tasked to examine the evaluation process for the program. LCCS CAN POINT TO EARLY SUCCESSES While noting that the LCCs are still relatively new, the committee recognized that the LCC Network has made progress toward its high-level strategic goals of addressing conservation strategy, developing collaborative conservation and advancing science. NAS REVIEW: RECOMMENDATIONS The NAS review committee offered specific recommendations and a number of observations for guiding improvements to the LCC Network and LCCs: LCC STRATEGIC PLAN & PERFORMANCE MEASURES» LCCs should strive to measure positive changes to species and habitats when feasible in lieu of process measures.» LCCs should conduct a network-wide evaluation on an ongoing basis to guide the work of the LCC Network as a whole. LCCs should also perform periodic evaluations for specific LCCs that have existed long enough to have had a perceptible impact on end outcomes. Performance measures should align with LCC Network strategic goals.» The LCC Network should improve its evaluation process to better capture the contributions made by all partner agencies or groups toward common objectives.

9 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW OF THE LCCS NAS REVIEW: RECOMMENDATIONS, CONT D COLLABORATIVE CONSERVATION» DOI should review the landscape and habitat conservation efforts, especially the Joint Ventures and the LCCs, to identify opportunities for improved coordination between these efforts.» Special consideration should be given to the limited capacity of state agency partners to participate in multiple efforts simultaneously.» The LCC and Climate Science Center programs should: be more clearly delineated; explicitly state how research efforts differ and complement each other; identify and build on existing examples of network-wide coordination; and make adjustments as appropriate. NAS REVIEW: NEXT STEPS Since the report was released in December 2015, the LCC Network has been conducting a deeper analysis of the review to fully distill the impact of the findings and recommendations to the LCC community. COORDINATION & COMMUNICATION The LCC Network is committed to reporting on progress made to address the NAS review over the course of the year. Activities will include presenting at national and regional fish and wildlife conferences, holding coordination meetings with partners, sharing updates with LCC Steering Committees, and posting articles on the LCC Network website (lccnetwork.org) and in the LCC Network e-newsletter. ABOUT LCCs Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are public-private partnerships composed of states, tribes, federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, international jurisdictions, and others working together to address landscape and seascape scale conservation issues. There are 22 LCCs across North America, the Caribbean and Pacific Islands. Ultimately, the LCC Network will use the report to set a trajectory for continual improvement; ensure the program is addressing landscape-scale conservation priorities; and demonstrate the benefits of landscape conservation and the LCCs to stakeholders and the nation. NEXT STEPS TEAM & ACTION PLAN The LCC Network has established a Next Steps team consisting of four working groups to develop and prioritize actions for addressing the NAS recommendations Strategic Plan, Performance Evaluation, Collaboration & Coordination, Landscape Conservation Design, and Communications. The Next Steps team is currently developing a draft action plan, which will be shared with partners in March 2016 for additional input and assistance in implementing the tasks. Recently, the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) convened a task force to assess the states relationships with LCCs. The outcomes of AFWA s effort also will be incorporated into the LCC Network Next Steps Action Plan. The full body of LCCs and key federal and state partner representatives will meet in June 2016 to focus on the improving the alignment of performance measures to the LCC Network Strategic Plan. Sockeye salmon schooling in Hidden Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska KATRINA MUELLER/USFWS

10 Tallgrass Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (MRB/GHI) Making Every Conservation Dollar Count for Wildlife, Water Quality & Agriculture Farming for Fish & Shrimp Midwestern states within watersheds across the Midwest and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley currently contribute the greatest nutrient load to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, an area where oxygen levels can decrease to the point of no longer supporting aquatic species or the fishing industry that depends on them. Reducing nutrient loading from these agricultural lands may significantly address hypoxia issues at multiple scales, from harmful algal blooms in local waters to the recovering resources of the Gulf. Multi-Sector Stakeholder Strategies Modifying the design or shifting the location of conservation practices could make program dollars go farther and appeal to more land managers by producing multi-sector benefits for wildlife, water quality and agriculture. Through a stakeholder-driven decision support process, the Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (GHI), led by seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, is developing an integrated framework consisting of: resource management objectives; a tiered set of conservation strategies within five agricultural production systems (corn and soybean, grazing lands, floodplain forest, rice, and cotton); and a Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) to align work in four ecological systems (headwater fields; upland prairies; mid-sized riparian streams; and mainstem floodplains). Tools for Precision Conservation Work Teams are preparing Fact Sheets for a dozen standardized and emerging practices that describe design, configuration, benefits, installation costs, performance metrics, relevant programs and recent research with simplified illustrations to guide technical assistance and consideration by land managers. The teams will refine this portfolio with additional practices. Based on this framework, The Conservation Fund developed a prototype GIS Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) to identify opportunity areas for conservation investment at the basin scale and at a higher resolution for use in the local scale pilot regions. A recent workshop reconvened researchers and technical program managers to guide refinement and implementation of these tools. The LCCs and Climate Science Centers support research on human dimensions and ecosystem services that will inform conservation delivery and adoption. Additional scenario planning could forecast conditions for adaptation strategies that respond to ecological or economic drivers, evaluated with landscape-level metrics. The MRB/GHI is designed to complement related ongoing efforts including the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force, NRCS Mississippi River Basin Initiative, and state nutrient reduction strategies but with an emphasis on the ecological and social values of wildlife habitat that help upstream communities connect to downstream impacts. These tools can focus conservation in key locations for multiple benefits. The multi-lcc online spatial analysis Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0 with over 200 data layers is available for download and visualization at: Databasin < 017e4ce98c3914dba1bc4ee7> ScienceBase < item/54e37c9ce4b08de9379b51e3> For more information Gwen White, Science Coordinator gwen_white@fws.gov (812) May 2016

11 Multi LCC Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative (MRB/GHI) Precision Conservation Research & Design Forum March 1 3, 2016; Baymont Inn & Suites, 6010 Gateway Dr., Plainfield, IN Workshop Summary The narrative below summarizes presentations and outcomes from the 3 day workshop, attended by 50 people in person and 18 online (see participant list). Detailed notes and all materials from the workshop are available online at lcc mississippi river basin gulfhypoxia initiative conservation design research forum Recommendations Forum participants offered high level advice on development and implementation of the Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative by recommending the following actions: 1. Continue development of the spatial targeting tool Continue to incorporate functional modifications and data layers into the spatial tool, updating spatial data as newer/more relevant information becomes available. 2. Better parse out the multi sector conservation benefits and related performance metrics Which agricultural objectives are relevant: sustainability, productivity, profitability or resiliency? For wildlife, are the relevant species metrics terrestrial or aquatic, game species, nongame or endangered species? For water quality, the measure may be nutrient load, local water quality, drinking water protection or quantity control. 3. Continue research into multiple benefits of emerging conservation practices In particular: soil health, biomass/biofuels, drainage water management, two stage ditches, and wetlands. 4. Expand the stakeholders involved with refinement and implementation Bring other partners in, particularly more representation from the agricultural sector, including commodity production groups, extension and farm advisors. 5. Demonstrate the utility of the tools at various scales Conduct pilot projects at different scales to help further refine the tools, focusing their utility in the context of conservation delivery. Test applicability of a surrogate species like approach to metrics and test the integration of the various metrics across the agriculture, water, and wildlife sectors. Work with NRCS and other agencies to integrate the tool into their strategic planning, starting at the local scale and working up. 6. Recognize and incorporate the importance of adequate infrastructure and personnel at a local level Ultimately there has to be someone who can and will use the tools. Success is often motivated by one individual; how do we build that infrastructure/capacity? The LCCs will invite participation by convening smaller teams to further refine the appropriate practices, spatial tool, and metrics based on the input gathered through this workshop.

12 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 2 of 9 Background & Forum Overview (Charlie Wooley, US FWS Region 3; Glen Salmon, ETPBR LCC; Dave Case, DJ Case & Associates) Reducing nutrient loading from the agricultural lands of the Midwest and Mississippi Alluvial Valley may significantly address hypoxia, from local waters to the recovering resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Modifying the design and/or shifting the location of conservation practices could make program dollars go farther and appeal to more land managers by producing multisector benefits for wildlife, water quality and agricultural production. The seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that overlap the Mississippi Basin are leading a collaborative process with dozens of partnering state and federal agencies, tribes and NGOs to identify which practices to emphasize and where to align program investments to support a multifunctional landscape. This effort is intended to be complementary to related on going efforts, like the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force, GOMA, MRBI, and state nutrient reduction strategies but with an added emphasis on the ecological and social values of wildlife habitat. Based on the framework and practices, The Conservation Fund developed a prototype Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0 spatial targeting tool for the Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative to identify opportunity areas for conservation investment. LCC funding supports research on human dimensions and ecosystem services to support conservation design, delivery and adoption. The online maps, free registration and access to the Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0 spatial analysis and targeting tool are available at the following websites (see User Guide and Conservation Blueprint Report Appendix A & B which list the data layers). User interface Gulf Hypoxia Data Basin Site URL: < Downloadable data layers Gulf Hypoxia ScienceBase Site URL: < There is a potential to connect to resources set aside for Gulf restoration (after all, we are the root of the problem). If we can market this initiative effectively, then we have a strong foundation from which to compete for those resources. Ultimately, we need to be prepared when an opportunity presents itself. Purpose of the workshop The Memphis workshop in August 2014 set the stage for research, identification and descriptions of key practices formulated by voluntary Work Teams and development of an online spatial targeting tool during This workshop assembled researchers and technical program managers, in person and online, to provide high level guidance for refining and delivering these pragmatic conservation tools. Objectives: 1. Become familiar with the draft set of high impact conservation practices, web based spatial analysis tool (Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0), and related research products. 2. Identify immediate opportunities to use these tools to target investments for conservation delivery in the Mississippi Basin. 3. Outline strategic guidance for implementation of the MRB/GHI program.

13 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 3 of 9 4. Prepare a well defined set of implementation actions and project proposals for consideration by the LCC Steering Committees. For more information, contact: Eastern Tallgrass Prairie & Big Rivers LCC (Glen Salmon, Gwen White) Plains & Prairie Potholes LCC (Rick Nelson) Upper Midwest & Great Lakes LCC (John Rogner, Brad Potter) Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC (Greg Wathen, Todd Jones Farrand, Gregg Elliott) Gulf Coast Prairie LCC (Bill Bartush, Ben Kahler, Cynthia Edwards) Appalachian LCC (Jean Brennan, Mary Davis) Gulf Restoration (John Tirpak, Bob Clevenstine) What? High Impact, Multi Benefit Conservation Practice Fact Sheets (Jorgen Rose, Indiana University) A set of agricultural conservation practices, selected for potential multi sector benefits, were organized by decision makers (in other words, who decides to put practices on the ground?) and by scale, in ascending order of size: Field Scale, Watershed Scale, and Landscape Scale (Upper & Lower Basins). As an example, Drainage Water Management is a practice that supports drought mitigation, wetland habitat, and nutrient runoff control. During 2015, Work Teams prepared Fact Sheets for a dozen standardized and emerging practices, describing design, configuration, benefits, installation costs, performance metrics, relevant programs and recent research on these practices, along with a simplified illustration of where and how the practice is applied, so they can be more easily described to landowners and implemented by field staff. The teams will continue to refine this portfolio and include additional practices. Where? Spatial Analysis Tool: Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0 (Michael Schwartz, The Conservation Fund) Based on the framework and practices, The Conservation Fund was contracted to develop a prototype Precision Conservation Blueprint v1.0 spatial targeting tool for the Mississippi River Basin / Gulf Hypoxia Initiative to identify opportunity areas for conservation investment. The online tool is scalable from the landscape scale (Mississippi River Basin) all the way to the local scale (i.e., field scale, 30m resolution). Over 200 downloadable data layers are posted to the system from a variety of sources. The process of updating this information is ongoing, and other sources of information are always appreciated. Mapping services are hosted on DataBasin, with the data layers and metadata located in USGS ScienceBase. All information is accessible by the public after the creation of a free account.

14 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 4 of 9 Why? Metrics and Models (Gwen White, ETPBR LCC; Cynthia Edwards, GCP LCC; Greg Wathen, GCPOLCC) A draft logic model details the problem we re trying to solve, the actions we need to take, the impacts of those actions, and methods for monitoring and evaluation. We need to develop landscape scale performance metrics and evaluation frameworks from each of the three sectors (water, wildlife, and agriculture) and combine them into a holistic methodology, working from the shared multisector objectives in the last workshop in Aug 2014 in Memphis. Traditional biophysical metrics must be integrated with social factors, using human dimensions research and methodology. Several modeling tools for landscape design and conservation tracking are available or under development through the LCCs and others. Combining models and metrics that will be useful in guiding adaptive management from the field scale to the basin scale at key locations in the Mississippi Basin will be a challenge. Relevant tools include: Gulf Coast Vulnerability Assessment Grassland Decision Support Tool Grassland Restoration Incentive Program Grassland Management Inventory Tool Forested Wetlands Decision Support Tool Assessment of Water Availability and Streamflow Characteristics Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value and Delivery Options How? Research Products (Kristin Shaw, ETPBR LCC) Staff compiled a list of research topics supported directly and indirectly by the seven LCCs that are relevant to refinement and application of these practices and tools. Additional research in physical science and human dimensions likely exists and should be brought to our attention, in addition to identification of science needs for further exploration.

15 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 5 of 9 Breakout #1 What: Refining High Impact Practices Field Scale Two types of field scale practices are pertinent: a) managing nutrients in the field; and b) managing runoff that carries nutrients off the field, characterized as approaches to Avoid, Control, and Trap (ACT). Soil health, drainage management, and biofuels are the most important practices with grazing perhaps less important (although nutrient application associated with CAFOs and riparian stream management could offer an exception). All practices have to be tailored to benefit specific species and habitats. We have to actively promote these multiple benefits. Important Programs/Actors: NRCS and Farm Bill programs, local Soil & Water Conservation Districts, private lands programs, habitat cost share programs, and local watershed groups (e.g., WMAs, EPA Section 319 projects). Private entities are becoming much more involved (e.g., Walmart, Kellogg, Monsanto in the Field to Market Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture). Major barriers: Lack of people and resources in the right places with the right training to provide technical assistance. In addition, different policies incentivize behaviors that directly conflict with each other. Watershed Scale All issues at every scale are interconnected. Watersheds at the Hydrologic Unit Code level 12 (HUC12s) might be the best way to maintain consistency across LCCs. Need more practices, not fewer ones so that farmers with different priorities have options. Stream restoration is one that we ve missing or has been parsed out into smaller practices that don t achieve sufficient benefits individually; several stream related practices must be deployed in combination for a holistic approach to restoration. Need a decision matrix based around benefits, not around practices to answer the question of how to get the benefits that the community wants. Major barriers: Quantifying and illustrating multiple benefits of some of these practices can be extremely challenging, especially for non experts, particularly as benefits change based on the details of the design. Important Programs/Actors: Iowa Soybean Association, NRCS, private lands, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and others. Major barriers include: absentee land ownership and the difficultly of connecting problems to solutions to decision makers. Landscape Scale (Upper Basin) Hydrology of the region (e.g., fix the plumbing ) is a key function to focus all strategies. It is difficult to distinguish some of these practices from others; some may be combined as a suite or strategy. Major barriers: Many policies with conservation implications are beyond the scope of decision makers in conservation agencies and organizations, potentially requiring coordination at a level larger than this initiative may be able to deliver. Farmers/producers don t necessarily trust conservation experts. Some private landowners who do not want to work with the federal government. Standardized engineering, payment and installation of practices can be extremely complicated. Conservation is voluntary; producers that can have the greatest impact do not always sign up. There are incentives other than conservation programs influencing actions of farmers.

16 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 6 of 9 Landscape Scale (Lower Basin) Hydrologic restoration is clearly important, in addition to focusing on improving incentives for conservation from a policy/management perspective for landowners (namely financial but also perhaps civic/social awards). Major Barriers: Limitation on ability to cost share for practices. The bottom line is cost for landowners/producers. Absentee landlords complicate things. Producers lack information and cannot easily get that information/help need more staff! Important Programs/Actors: NRCS, DU, TNC, Partners/Private Lands Programs, Farm Bill programs, and others. Online Breakout (all scales) Some practices don t have clear benefits for one or more of the categories, which may make them a tough sell as a multi sector practice. Incentives for adoption need to incorporate production factors (e.g., ease of use, profitability, complexity, fit with production systems). Major Barriers: It may be difficult to sell the more complex practices; most landowners want to simplify their inputs and production systems, not diversify or move towards more complexity. Breakout #2 Where: Spatial Targeting Tool The group was overall very pleased with the online spatial targeting tool and expressed potential for program implementation. Many technical modifications, data additions and future resources were suggested by the group to continue to develop the online tool. They emphasized that the tool must be accessible to multiple levels of users. While not sure about fieldscale utility, the tool is definitely useful for upper management and policy level decision makers to justify actions at scales from local watershed projects to regional and basin level programs. In designing the tool, we need to create resources that will function as a User Guide that people can comment on and use to answer FAQs. May present try me tools or online trainings. The scalable nature of the tool creates problems and challenges both at the landscape whole basin scale and for higher resolution analyses at the local scale. It may be easier to just pursue refinement at just one of these scales, rather than both. Having the necessary data for the field scale application may be prohibitive due to computing requirements. Perhaps it would be better to forgo field scale analysis to reflect the scale of the landscape conservation cooperatives. There are other agencies that do field scale design. One the other hand, all conservation is ultimately local, so there needs to be some way to integrate these scales perhaps this would be a primary function of this tool. Due to temporal and physical separation of cause and effect, the tool may need to reflect outputs rather than outcomes for landscape scale monitoring and performance metrics. Better integration of social components needs to be developed further rather than just relying on proxies of where projects are currently located on the ground. Breakout #3 How: Metrics and Models More than anything else we need baselines; we need to know what we need to know. Wildlife especially presents difficulties. We need to have an idea of which taxa reflect practices at these scales before designing the evaluation framework. Habitat based spatial models that apply to these objectives are lacking. It is not easy to measure field level impacts of water quality directly that scale up to the basin

17 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 7 of 9 level. Policies happen at multiple levels programmatic policies, local regulations, state policy, federal policy, administrative code, organizational policies. Which are applicable for this initiative? Tracking acres of implementation as a metric of success for wildlife is inadequate as a measure; this is an output that does not reflect the quality of the habitat or other impacts on achieving outcome based objectives. The trend in percentage of farmers participating in programs is perhaps a better measure than just the number of farmers. We could generate a composite return on investment figure for the multi sector benefits reflecting value over time in addition to short term return on investment (ROI). Incorporate more ecosystem services metrics. For civic engagement (social infrastructure), we need a metric that gets at reduction of cross sector conflicts or looks at the streamlining of linkages between organizations (cooperation). Landowner responses to external factors (e.g., commodity prices) would indicate factors influencing land management decisions. All metrics aside, most investment is opportunistic, such as the current movement motivated by a single charismatic species (e.g., monarchs). How do we account for this? How do we measure climate resiliency and vulnerability or agricultural risk reduction and resiliency? Measurement of perceptions and attitudes, not necessarily values, would assess adoption of the right practices in the right places. Much of this human dimensions research is underway, but more is needed. It is difficult to separate civic engagement from social values. This type of research is only just getting started and we need more long term research. There are concerns about privacy and how information is shared. These concerns will need to be addressed at the various scales. Integrating existing monitoring/metrics that could provide good starting points, paired with other landscape scale efforts such as the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. This approach would require better communication across agencies that collect and manage data at multiple scales. In addition, benefits accruing to different sectors and occur at different scales. For example, wildlife impacts are not achieved at the field scale or even at a HUC12 watershed, but may require basin level changes. Models need to be able to separate out farmers and producers from landowners. We need better models and metrics but we also need better governance structures to make use of that information. We might need to settle for outputs as opposed to outcomes. We may need to focus on outcomes that are specific to LCC geographies, in addition to tracking outcomes to objectives of the initiative. Role of the LCCs The LCCs can support the initiative by: 1) convening actors; 2) identifying system levers; 3) developing spatial targeting tools; 4) guiding configuration of fish and wildlife conservation, integrated across scales; and 5) ensure that objectives contribute to both local water quality and the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia problem. LCCs have a unique capacity to function as a facilitator and convener between the different levels of government and NGOs, as well as across different sectors (agriculture, wildlife, and water quality). LCCs can also work to help identify and define a vision for diverse groups of partners and can help convene those partners and collaborators to meet complex challenges where areas of interest/responsibility overlap. LCCs do not need to serve on the ground conservation delivery functions; those organizations and networks already exist. LCCs can help identify where those partners can contribute according to their individual missions and where overlap or collaborative opportunities exist.

18 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 8 of 9 Forum Participants (50 in person; 18 online): Breakout First Name Last Name Company City/Town State Project Lead Will Allen The Conservation Fund Chapel Hill NC Watershed Meghna Babbar Sebens Oregon State Univ Corvallis OR Watershed Jennifer Boyle Warner IN Assoc of SWCDs Indianapolis IN Lower Basin Wes Burger Mississippi State Univ Mississippi St MS Upper Basin Dave Case DJ Case & Associates Mishawaka IN Facilitator Lower Basin Kim Caviness MS DEQ Jackson MS Reardon Project Lead Bob Clevenstine US FWS Refuges Rock Island IL Lower Basin Reed Cripps NRCS Kentucky Lexington KY Upper Basin Dawn Davis US FWS Portland OR Recorder Lower Basin Cynthia Edwards Gulf Coast Prairie LCC Jackson MS Facilitator Upper Basin Timothy Fox USGS UMESC La Crosse WI Watershed Jane Frankenberger Purdue Univ West Lafayette IN Field Josh Griffin IN DNR Private Lands Edinburgh IN Upper Basin Julie Harrold IN State Dept of Agriculture Indianapolis IN Watershed Carol Hays Prairie Rivers Network Champaign IL Field Troy Hinkle Knox County SWCD Vincennes IN Lower Basin Yetta Jager Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge TN Upper Basin Kris Johnson TNC North America Freshwater Minneapolis MN Watershed Doug Keller IN DNR Fisheries Indianapolis IN Field Recorder Jeff Kiefer US FWS Private Lands Bloomington IN Upper Basin Lyn Kirschner USDA NRCS Madison WI Upper Basin Brian Kruse NRCS Indiana Indianapolis IN Upper Basin Xiaoqiang Liu Ohio State Univ Columbus OH Upper Basin Janette Marsh US EPA Chicago IL Watershed Vicky Meretsky Indiana Univ Bloomington IN Recorder Watershed Benjamin Miller IN DNR Healthy Rivers INitiative Indianapolis IN Upper Basin Brian Miller IL Water Resources Center Urbana IL Lower Basin Craig Miller Univ Illinois Champaign IL Upper Basin Scott Morlock USGS Indianapolis IN Field Jeremy Peichel US Forest Service St Paul MN Upper Basin Rebecca Power Univ Wisconsin Ext SERA46 Madison WI Lower Basin Anne Rea US EPA RTP NC Field Ben Reinhart Purdue Univ West Lafayette IN Upper Basin Jill Reinhart NRCS Indiana Indianapolis IN Field William Richardson USGS UMESC La Crosse WI

19 MRB/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Research & Design Forum Summary (draft) Mar 1 3, 2016, Plainfield, IN Page 9 of 9 Field Facilitator Jorgan Rose Indiana Univ Bloomington IN Project Lead Glen Salmon Tallgrass Prairie LCC Bloomington IN Watershed Eric Schenck Ducks Unlimited Peoria IL Project Lead Michael Schwartz The Conservation Fund Shepherdstown WV Upper Basin Michael Sertle Ducks Unlimited Oakland City IN Lower Basin Kristin Shaw Tallgrass Prairie LCC Bloomington IN Recorder Lower Basin Sherri Shoults US FWS Greers Ferry Natlional Heber Springs AR Fish Hatchery Field Ajay Singh Purdue Univ West Lafayette IN Field Anthony Sipes IN DNR South Region Linton IN Landscape Field Brad Smith The Nature Conservancy Evansville IN Upper Basin Brian Smith US DOT Matteson IL Watershed Janet Sternburg MO Dept of Conservation Jefferson City MO Upper Basin Robert Swanson USGS Lincoln NE Field Charles Theiling US Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island IL Watershed Jack Waide USGS UMESC La Crosse WI Watershed Greg Wathen Gulf Coast Plains & Ozarks LCC Nashville TN Facilitator Online Gwen White Tallgrass Prairie LCC Bloomington IN Facilitator Watershed Matt Williams TNC Indiana Indianapolis IN ETPBR CoChair Charles Wooley US FWS Region 3 Bloomington MN Online Participants: Beth Baker Mississippi State University REACH Mississippi St MS Bill Bartush GCP LCC Lafayette LA Gary Bentrup USFS National Agroforestry Center Lincoln NE Larry Brown Ohio State Univ FABE Columbus OH Craig Czarnecki FWS Region 3 Science Applications East Lansing MI Michael Dosskey USFS National Agroforestry Center Lincoln NE Heidi Keuler Fishers & Farmers Partnership La Crosse WI Kerry Leigh Natural Land Institute Rockford IL Alan Lewitus NOAA Silver Spring MD Trevor Meckley NOAA Knauss Fellow Silver Spring MD Cristina Negri Argonne National Laboratory Argonne IL Andrew Rehn Prairie Rivers Network Champaign IL Mark Reiter IN DNR Indianapolis IN Jason Rohweder USGS UMESC La Crosse WI Andrew Stephenson Univ Northern Iowa Cedar Falls IA John Tirpak US FWS Lafayette LA Adriana Valcu Lisman Iowa State Univ CARD Ames IA

20 3/24/2016 Kelley Myers Eastern Tallgrass Prairie Big Rivers LCC March 2016 MONARCH BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION IN THE STATES Photo: FWS Summary Nature of the Concern Nature of the Concern Monarch Conservation Workshop MAFWA/NWF/AFWA/NWF Grant State Conservation Planning USFWS/State Planning Photo: FWS 1

21 3/24/2016 Monarch Conservation Workshop Held in Des Moines, IA October 2015 Attended by over 75 people, representing: 10 states, including FW agencies, agricultural agencies and research institutions Federal agencies: USFWS, USGS, NRCS NWF PF AFWA Meeting occurred over three days and included sessions that provided: Background science and policy discussion Tools and programs in process and development Planning future steps Monarch Conservation Workshop: Key Messages Monarch Conservation Workshop: Recommendations Monarch conservation is an international issue, and has the attention of the heads of state of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. As such, it presents an opportunity as well as a challenge. The decline of the monarch butterfly population is real and requires action. Recovery of the monarch butterfly will require commitments from all sectors. For states that have not already taken an active role in Monarch conservation, a regional framework to plug into will be very beneficial. Development of a formalized State Monarch/ Pollinator Conservation Strategy or Plan could be important as the listing process continues. An important component will be to understand and incorporate the PECE Policy. The results of the demographic modeling indicate that, if conservation efforts are focused in the North Central United States (the core breeding range of the monarch), the response is more robust than if conservation effort is applied equally nation-wide. This modeling highlights how critical the MAFWA states are to monarch conservation. 1. MAFWA Directors should consider appointing a representative to the Monarch Joint Venture Steering Committee. DONE 2. Each State should explore the possibility of hosting a Monarch/Pollinator Summit to gather input from a coalition of stakeholders within their states, if they haven t done so already. UNDERWAY 3. Each State should consider developing state-level Monarch Conservation Plan/Strategy. UNDERWAY 4. MAFWA States (in partnership with other States in the Monarch central flyway) should develop a regional plan that will help inform USFWS s listing decision in This regional plan would roll-up the individual State plans to show how they work together toward national objectives. UNDERWAY 5. MAFWA States and its partners should explore opportunities to hire a regional State-level Monarch Coordinator who would assist with coordinating State Monarch/ Pollinator plans, tracking on-going efforts in each state, ensuring states are communicating about Monarch Activities, and, ultimately, drafting a regional Monarch plan. EXPLORATION 2

22 3/24/2016 MAFWA/NWF Grant State Conservation Planning Efforts Funded by NFWF, Round 1 Develop materials and templates for states to use to plan and implement state summits and develop state conservation plans Retreat, Fall 2016 Austin, TX area Purpose: to pull together state plans and develop framework and coordination, where possible, among the states Project partners have included: MAFWA, NWF, AFWA, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Pheasants Forever Some states have completed conservation plans, including Texas and Missouri Some states have held summits or are in the process of organizing summits, including Kansas, Minnesota, Michigan and Kentucky An ad hoc committee of MAFWA states and Texas are continuing to meet to share updates and coordinate to the extent practicable while a regional coordinator is explored Iowa has established a Monarch Consortium, which is a broad-based coalition of organizations from conservation organizations to commodity groups to research institutions, with the goal of a robust state-wide conservation plan across sectors Monarch Conservation Science Partnership SDM Planning Meeting Wide-ranging membership, including USFWS, USGS, USFS, NPS, AFWA, universities, NGOs, and Iowa DNR Established national goals: 225M monarchs 1.4B stems of milkweed in US Created different storylines and predicted outcomes at different levels of participation Now it will be up to the states to decide how to split the national goals and what can be done within each storyline within each state Tentatively scheduled for May 2016 in Chicago, IL Two major topic areas: Regional/flyway coordination State-level population and habitat targets Very small group with intention to expand in next steps Appointment of participants through AFWA directors Working on a national monitoring plan 3

23 3/24/ Thank you QUESTIONS? 4

24 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Conserving Monarchs The Midwest Region ETPBR LCC Monarch Butterfly populations are in peril. Each year, the population is estimated by the size of the total habitat monarchs occupy over the winter in Mexico. This year s population was estimated to cover about 10 acres (4.01 ha). As much of the monarch flyway is located in the Upper Midwest, our ability to provide on-the-ground habitat for monarchs in this area is key to conserving this unique migratory species. To do this, the Service is engaging partners & the public to build & enhance habitat for pollinators. Our work is in support of the larger National Pollinator Health Strategy to conserve pollinators & increase viable habitat across the country. By increasing milkweeds & nectar plants, our goal is to restore the monarch population to a size that occupies 15 acres of overwintering habitat and 225 million monarchs by Leadership We bring partners together with our unique mission to conserve fish, wildlife & plants. Service Director Dan Ashe allocated $4 million a year for the next 5 years for monarch & pollinator conservation projects, starting in We are working with AFWA to implement monarch conservation on both state & federal levels. All Midwest Region states have incorporated monarch butterflies in their SWAPs (except Wisconsin). Partnering with NFWF, we initiated the Monarch Conservation Fund with $1.2 million in The Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund will Monarch Butterfly on Black-eyed Susan by USFWS award up to approximately $3.9 million in grants in Proposals are due May 2 nd at 11:59 PM EST. Habitat Restoration Saving the monarch means getting milkweed & other pollinator habitat on-the-ground. In 2015 we committed to restore & enhance 200,000 acres of pollinator habitat; we exceeded that goal & restored over 270,000 acres. For 2016 & 2017 we have committed to restore 130,000 acres a year on public & private lands. Science As a science-driven agency, we have identified ways to improve our scientific capacity for monarch conservation. Currently we are working with USGS, MJV, & other experts to develop an extinction risk model, a demographic model, & decision support tools for habitat restoration. The Service, LCC partnership & local urban communities are developing an urban landscape conservation design model that can be used in urban areas across the monarch migration route. Engaging Others People are our most important asset. We engage partners & citizens to inspire interest in monarch conservation. We need to help save the monarch. Nationally the Service plans to create 750 schoolyard habitats & pollinator gardens to engage communities. We ve partnered with National Wildlife Federation to engage communities all along the I-35 corridor which overlaps with central flyway of the monarch s migration path through DOTs and the Mayor s Monarch Pledge, which just signed on its 100 th Mayor, Chris Coleman of St. Paul, Minnesota. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2016

25 ETPBR Landscape Conservation Cooperative A Monarch s View of the City Urban Monarch Landscape Conservation Design Monarch Butterfly populations are in peril. Each year, the population is estimated by the size of the total habitat monarchs occupy over the winter in Mexico. This year s monarch population was estimated to cover 4.01 hectares (9.91 acres). Preliminary research results from an effort led by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that stabilizing monarch populations requires a conservation strategy across all land types to adequately minimize extinction risk. With over 80% of people living in urban areas, we believe there are unprecedented opportunities in cities to connect people with nature through monarch and pollinator conservation. To work in urban areas, we have to understand: the potential number of stems of milkweed in urban areas; where to focus conservation to achieve the best social and ecological results; and how to engage various urban sectors in monarch conservation. The Urban Monarch Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) Project addresses all of these questions. What is an LCD? A Landscape Conservation Design is both a process and a product. It is a stakeholder-based conservation planning process that helps: 1) define desired future conditions; 2) weigh and select strategies to align actions; 3) map high priority opportunities on the landscape; 4) model scenarios and tradeoffs; and 5) implement, evaluate, and refine adaptive management. It is a product or conservation plan that is science-based, spatially explicit, has measurable objectives (in this case, potential monarch habitat by urban land use type), and includes Tagged monarch on purple coneflower at Minnesota Valley NWR By Joanna Gilkeson USFWS community engagement and implementation strategies. Products This project will have four major products: A completed geospatial model with social and biological mapping classifications replicable in any metropolitan area or town within the monarch migratory pathway. Guidance will be presented in a how-to framework describing the Urban Monarch LCD process and related engagement strategies for urban land use categories. This template will be but ready for review October 2016 and completed by January Four map-based LCDs for pilot metropolitan areas in Austin, TX, Chicago, IL, Kansas City, KS/MO, and Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. These planning tools will include: potential milkweed/habitat contribution; location of conservation opportunity areas; implementation strategies by land use class; and description of ecological and social benefits. Working models will be created by Fall Proof of concept projects in each city will inform gaps in the model and test engagement strategies. Projects are varied based on geographic location and focus on biological, social and ecological data collection in each city. Completed by September A workshop will be held to engage urban communities within the migratory pathway to get feedback on the model that informs future urban monarch LCDs (October 2016). For more information John Rogner, LCC Coordinator John_Rogner@fws.gov (847) , ext Abigail Derby-Lewis, Principal Investigator, The Field Museum aderby@fieldmuseum.org (312) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service March 2016

26 FWS National Monarch Conservation Prioritization -Version1.0 Prepared by: Ryan Drum, USFWS, Midwest Region National Prioritization: This map is draft, Version 1.0. It was created by USFWS using a county prioritization tool created by USGS. Data layers and weightings were selected based on input from a subset of the Monarch Science Partnership and other USFWS staff, including: Ryan Drum (USFWS), Karen Oberhauser (Monarch Joint Venture), Chip Taylor (Monarch Watch), Wayne Thogmartin (USGS), Jason Rohweder (USGS), Madeline Steel (USFWS), Scott Black (Xerxes Society), Doug Helmers (USFWS), Pauline Drobney (USFWS), Jennifer Szymanski (USFWS), Joe Engler (USFWS), Kurt Johnson (USFWS), Brad Potter (USFWS), and Sarina Jepsen (Xerxes Society). The primary objective was to target monarch conservation activities with a focus on maximizing monarch population levels on the overwintering grounds in Mexico. See criteria/weightings below. For both western and eastern monarch geographies, our conceptual framework was to focus on 1) geographic priorities, 2) opportunity areas, and 3) avoid threats. How these were defined varied slightly between the west and the east. U.S.FishandWildlifeService September2015

27 Final Layer Merge Weights: Western Priorities (10% of total weight--including NM, CO, WY, MT and west from there) Eastern Priorities (90% of total weight; everything not included in western states) Eastern (Midwest+) Prioritization (90%): Priority areas (50%) Wassener and Hobson Polygons(50%) Chip s Tag Returns Layer (50%) Strategic Opportunities (25%) CRP (30%) Protected areas (30%) Prioritized moderate density of secondary roads (10%) Railroad ROW density (10%) Powerline ROW density (10%) Prioritized moderate density of light development (10%) Threats (25%) Combined Neonictinoid pesticide levels (50%) Climate vulnerability (based on difference between current and B2 emission scenario habitat index for monarchs) (50%) Western Prioritization (10%): Priority Areas (50%) Milkweed occupied counties (34%) Stevens and Fry Climate Divisions (Wayne already built; 33%) Overwintering sites counties occupied (from Xerces Society; 33%) Strategic Opportunities (25%) Protected Lands (including BLM, USFS, FWS, NPS lands, permanent easements; 50%) CRP (10%) Powerline ROW (20%) Prioritized moderate density of secondary roads (10%) Railway ROW (10%) Threats (25%) Climate vulnerability (based on difference between current and B2 emission scenario habitat index for monarchs; 50%) Combined neonicotinoid levels (50%) U.S.FishandWildlifeService September2015

28 FY16 BUSINESS PLANS OVERVIEW Spring 2016 Project Proposals Urban Conservation Gulf Hypoxia River Restoration Agroecology Human Dimensions Prairie Restoration Monarch Conservation A strategy prepared by LCC Technical Advisory Groups to guide immediate conservation actions to restore and connect wildlife with people on the rich soils of a functional working landscape.