Special considerationsfor monitoring in support of the Fishers and FarmersPartnership

Ken Lubinski

USGS, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterLa Crosse, WI

Wabash River Consortium, November 4, 2011

The Upper Mississippi River near La Crosse, Wisconsin

River/stream monitoring –

never boring

The goal is a choice we make, limited by our mutual commitment and how permanent the degradation is.(Figure modified from Cairns (1993).

A common river/stream situation – the need to turn things around

OUTLINE

• The Fishers and Farmers Partnershipfor the Upper Mississippi River Basin

• 4 monitoring issues related to:

• Midwestern agricultural streams

• the Fishers and Farmers approach to conservation

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

Partnership principles

• Actions that sustain agriculture and fishes

• Local leadership and flexible assistance

• Collaboration and learning across spatial scales

Too idealistic?

Considering the numbers,engaging others is practical and necessary!

Midwest stream practitioners? ~ 5,000

UMRB farms ~ 200,000

UMRB fishers ~ 5,000,000

Initial Projects Targets:

Stop gulley erosion to restore naturallyreproducing troutpopulations andstream functions

Oxbow reconnection for Topeka shiners

Protect mussel/fish habitat by gettingcows out of stream

4 issues

Issue #1: It’s the ecosystem!

Terrestrial Environment/

Land Use Weather/Climate

Flow Regime

Habitat Structure

Water Quality

Biotic Interactions

Energy Source

Native Species

Figure 1. Basic model of a stream ecosystem and its elements (Karr 1991).

Riparian Zone

Conservation Target: Widely distributed native stream fish assemblages

Basin level -

Pre-

Post-

Issue #2: Accepting two set of goals

Respect

Independence

Prosperity

Fairness

Life connected to the natural

world

Attention to the unique aspects of

their region

Organization of local

landowner groups

Data to help make farm decisions

and changes

Flexible, coordinated

technical assistance

Small cushion of financial support

Issue #3: Influencing future actions

Project Site

B

C If success is to be measured at Reach level(in addition to the above)

- Compare A, B, and C (pre-) to A, B, and C (post-project)

D

E

If success is to be measured at System Level(in addition to the above)

- Compare D-E (pre-) to D-E (post-project)

“ConservationTargetArea”

A

- Compare A (pre-) to A (post-project)

If success is to be measured at Project LevelMEASURE OVER 1-3 YEARS?

MEASURE OVER 1-5 YEARS?

MEASURE OVER 10-12 YEARS?

Addressing the need to get beyond site benefits:

Tell me and I forget,

teach me and I remember,

involve me and I learn.

Issiaka Kante, Burkina Faso

Engaging farmers:

Issue #4: Accountability

FFP needs a functional monitoring program,one that adds accountability and adaptabilityto 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?

Highly relevant information?

ForFishers(conservationists)

ForFarmers(landowners)

Practices Outcomes

Technical Assistance

Help with paperwork

Flexibility

Profitability

Quality of Life

StreamEcosystemHealth

Buffers

Connectivity

Fences/wells

*****

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