1 / 23

Special considerations for monitoring in support of the Fishers and Farmers Partnership

Wabash River Consortium, November 4, 2011. Special considerations for monitoring in support of the Fishers and Farmers Partnership. Ken Lubinski USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center La Crosse, WI. The Upper Mississippi River near La Crosse, Wisconsin.

alexis
Download Presentation

Special considerations for monitoring in support of the Fishers and Farmers Partnership

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wabash River Consortium, November 4, 2011 Special considerations for monitoring in support of the Fishers and Farmers Partnership Ken Lubinski USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center La Crosse, WI

  2. The Upper Mississippi River near La Crosse, Wisconsin

  3. River/stream monitoring – never boring

  4. A common river/stream situation – the need to turn things around The goal is a choice we make, limited by our mutual commitment and how permanent the degradation is. (Figure modified from Cairns (1993).

  5. OUTLINE • The Fishers and Farmers Partnership • for the Upper Mississippi River Basin • 4 monitoring issues related to: • Midwestern agricultural streams • the Fishers and Farmers approach to conservation

  6. What does the Fishers and Farmers Partnership intend to do? • Support stream restoration projects while • maintaining or increasing farm profitability • Eventually improve stream health and farmer • quality of life at the basin scale

  7. Partnership principles • Actions that sustain agriculture and fishes • Localleadership and flexible assistance • Collaboration and learning across spatial scales

  8. Too idealistic? Midwest stream practitioners ? ~ 5,000 UMRB farms ~ 200,000 UMRB fishers ~ 5,000,000 Considering the numbers, engaging others is practical and necessary!

  9. Targets: Initial Projects Stop gulley erosion to restore naturally reproducing trout populations and stream functions Oxbow reconnection for Topeka shiners Protect mussel/ fish habitat by getting cows out of stream

  10. 4 issues

  11. Issue #1: It’s the ecosystem!

  12. Terrestrial Environment/ Land Use Weather/Climate Flow Regime Energy Source Water Quality Native Species Habitat Structure Biotic Interactions Riparian Zone Figure 1. Basic model of a stream ecosystem and its elements (Karr 1991).

  13. Basin level - Conservation Target: Widely distributed native stream fish assemblages Post- Pre-

  14. Issue #2: Accepting two set of goals

  15. Issue #3: Influencing future actions

  16. If success is to be measured at Project Level - Compare A (pre-) to A (post-project) B A If success is to be measured at Reach level (in addition to the above) C D • Compare A, B, and C (pre-) to • A, B, and C (post-project) E If success is to be measured at System Level (in addition to the above) • Compare D-E (pre-) to • D-E (post-project) Addressing the need to get beyond site benefits: MEASURE OVER 1-3 YEARS? MEASURE OVER 1-5 YEARS? “Conservation Target Area” MEASURE OVER 10-12 YEARS? Project Site

  17. Engaging farmers: Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn. IssiakaKante, Burkina Faso

  18. Issue #4: Accountability

  19. FFP needs a functional monitoring program, one that adds accountability and adaptability to the Partnership. Reasonable cost Highly relevant information Max. use of existing resources (DNR’s, EPA, NRCS, volunteers, students, farmers, fishers, “Friends”) What works, what doesn’t? How project(s) contribute to “system” condition?

  20. Highly relevant information? ** *** Practices Outcomes For Fishers (conservationists) Buffers Connectivity Fences/wells Stream Ecosystem Health Technical Assistance For Farmers (landowners) Profitability Quality of Life Help with paperwork Flexibility

  21. Next Steps In 5 years: - establish Partnership identity - support projects in 10 target areas? In 100 years: - improved stream health across 50% of basin? In 200 years: - rest

More Related